ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2017

☐

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number: 001-35969

PTC THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Delaware

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

04-3416587

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

100 Corporate Court

South Plainfield, New Jersey

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

07080

(Zip Code)

(908) 222-7000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class

Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, $0.001 par value

Nasdaq Global Select Market

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes þ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer ☐

Accelerated filer þ

Non-accelerated filer ☐

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company ☐

Emerging growth company ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No þ

The aggregate market value of the Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based upon the last sale price of the Common Stock reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2017, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was $682,125,673. For purposes of this calculation, shares of Common Stock held by directors and officers have been treated as shares held by affiliates.

As of February 28, 2018, the registrant had 41,795,687 shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III of this Annual Report incorporates by reference information from the definitive Proxy Statement for the registrant’s 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, among other things, statements about:

•

our ability to negotiate, secure and maintain adequate pricing, coverage and reimbursement terms and processes on a timely basis, or at all, with third-party payors for Emflaza™ (deflazacort) for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, in the United States and for Translarna™ (ataluren) for the treatment of nonsense mutation DMD, or nmDMD, in the European Economic Area, or EEA, and other countries in which we have or may obtain regulatory approval, or in which there exist significant reimbursed early access programs, or EAP programs;

•

our ability to maintain our marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA (which is subject to the specific obligation to conduct and submit the results of Study 041 to the EMA and annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA);

•

our ability to enroll, fund, and complete Study 041, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 18-month, placebo-controlled clinical trial of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD followed by an 18-month open label extension, according to the protocol agreed with the EMA, and by the trial’s deadline;

•

the anticipated period of market exclusivity for Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, or Orphan Drug Act, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act and through any grant of pediatric exclusivity;

•

our ability to complete the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, post-marketing requirements to the marketing authorization of Emflaza or any requirements necessary to obtain any grant of pediatric exclusivity;

•

our expectations with respect to our acquisition of all rights to Emflaza™ (deflazacort) from Marathon Pharmaceuticals, LLC (now known as Complete Pharma Holdings, LLC), or Marathon, including with respect to our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition (including with respect to future revenue generation and contingent payments to Marathon based on annual net sales);

•

our ability to resolve the matters set forth in the FDA’s denial of our appeal to the Complete Response Letter we received from the FDA in connection with our New Drug Application, or NDA, for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, and our ability to perform additional clinical trials, non-clinical studies or CMC assessments or analyses at significant cost;

•

the timing and scope of our continued commercialization of Translarna as a treatment for nmDMD in the EEA or other territories outside of the United States;

•

our ability to obtain additional and maintain existing reimbursed named patient and cohort EAP programs for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD on adequate terms, or at all;

•

our estimates regarding the potential market opportunity for Translarna and Emflaza, including the size of eligible patient populations and our ability to identify such patients;

•

our estimates regarding expenses, future revenues, third-party discounts and rebates, capital requirements and needs for additional financing, including our ability to maintain the level of our expenses consistent with our internal budgets and forecasts and to secure additional funds on favorable terms or at all;

•

the timing and conduct of our ongoing, planned and potential future clinical trials and studies of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, aniridia, and Dravet syndrome/CDKL5, each caused by nonsense mutations, as well as our studies in spinal muscular atrophy and our oncology program, including the timing of initiation, enrollment and completion of the trials and the period during which the results of the trials will become available;

•

the rate and degree of market acceptance and clinical utility of Translarna and Emflaza;

the ability and willingness of patients and healthcare professionals to access Translarna through alternative means if pricing and reimbursement negotiations in the applicable territory do not have a positive outcome;

the ability of Translarna, Emflaza and our other product candidates to meet existing or future regulatory standards;

•

our ability to maintain the current labeling under the marketing authorization in the EEA or expand the approved product label of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, whether pursuant to our Phase 2 study of Translarna for nmDMD in pediatric patients, or otherwise;

•

the potential receipt of revenues from future sales of Translarna, Emflaza and other product candidates, including our ability to earn a profit from sales or licenses of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the countries in which we have or may obtain regulatory approval and of Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States;

•

the potential impact that enrollment, funding and completion of Study 041 may have on our revenue growth;

•

our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and strategy, including the ability of our third-party manufacturers to manufacture and deliver Translarna and Emflaza in clinically and commercially sufficient quantities and the ability of distributors to process orders in a timely manner and satisfy their other obligations to us;

•

our ability to establish and maintain arrangements for the manufacture of Translarna, Emflaza and our other product candidates that are sufficient to meet clinical trial and commercial launch requirements;

•

our ability to satisfy our obligations under the terms of the credit and security agreement with MidCap Financial Trust, or MidCap Financial, as administrative agent and MidCap Financial and certain other financial institutions as lenders thereunder;

•

our other regulatory submissions, including with respect to timing and outcome of regulatory review;

•

our plans to pursue development of Translarna for additional indications;

our plans to pursue research and development of other product candidates;

•

whether we may pursue business development opportunities, including potential collaborations, alliances, and acquisition or licensing of assets and our ability to successfully develop or commercialize any assets to which we may gain rights pursuant to such business development opportunities;

•

the potential advantages of Translarna and Emflaza;

•

our intellectual property position;

•

the impact of government laws and regulations;

•

the impact of litigation that has been brought against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors or of litigation that we are pursuing against others;

•

our competitive position; and

•

our expectations with respect to the development and regulatory status of our product candidates and program directed against spinal muscular atrophy in collaboration with F. Hoffmann La Roche Ltd and Hoffmann La Roche Inc., which we refer to collectively as Roche, and the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Foundation, or the SMA Foundation, and our estimates regarding future revenues from achievement of milestones in that program.

We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make.

Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments we may make.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires, references to “PTC,” “PTC Therapeutics,” “we,” “us,” “our,” “the Company,” and similar references refer to PTC Therapeutics, Inc. and, where appropriate, its subsidiaries. The trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners.

All website addresses given in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are for information only and are not intended to be an active link or to incorporate any website information into this document.

We are a science-led global biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of clinically-differentiated medicines that provide benefits to patients with rare disorders. We have launched two rare disease products and have a global commercial footprint. Our recent ability to commercialize products is the foundation that drives our continued investment in a robust pipeline of transformative medicines and our mission to provide access to best-in-class treatments for patients who have an unmet medical need.

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to bring best in-class therapies with differentiated clinical benefit to patients affected by rare disorders, by leveraging our global commercial infrastructure to maximize value for our patients and stakeholders.

•

Global DMD Franchise - We have two products, Translarna™ (ataluren) and Emflaza™ (deflazacort), for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, a rare, life threatening disorder. Translarna received marketing authorization from the European Commission in August 2014 for the treatment of nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or nmDMD, in ambulatory patients aged five years and older in the 31 member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA. During fiscal year 2017, Translarna achieved net sales of $145.2 million and is currently available for the treatment of nmDMD in over 25 countries. Emflaza is approved in the United States for the treatment of DMD in patients five years and older. During fiscal year 2017, Emflaza achieved net sales of $28.8 million.

•

Internal Splicing Technology Platform - Our spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) collaboration is with F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd and Hoffman-La Roche Inc., which we refer to collectively as Roche, and the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Foundation, or SMA Foundation. Currently our collaboration has three clinical trials ongoing to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of RG7916 (RO7034067), the lead compound in the SMA program. Sunfish, a two-part clinical study in pediatric and adult type 2 and type 3 SMA patients initiated in the fourth quarter of 2016, followed by the initiation of Firefish in the fourth quarter of 2016, a two-part clinical study in infants with type 1 SMA. In October 2017, Sunfish transitioned into the pivotal second part of its study, which triggered a $20 million milestone payment to us from Roche. Preliminary data from the Sunfish trial were presented in January 2018 at the International Scientific Congress on Spinal Muscular Atrophy. RG7916 was well tolerated at all doses and there have been no drug-related safety findings leading to withdrawal. In Sunfish, the data demonstrate that the five cohorts treated with RG7916 for at least 28 days had an exposure-dependent increase in SMN protein. Early interim data from the Firefish trial were also presented in January 2018 at the International Scientific Congress on Spinal Muscular Atrophy and demonstrated maintenance of the ability to swallow and no need for tracheostomy or permanent ventilation. Overall survival were also presented. Previously published natural history data indicate that in comparable historic cohorts the median age of event-free survival for SMA Type 1 infants to be between 8 and 10.5 months.

•

Pursuing Value-Creation Opportunities - We have a pipeline of product candidates that are in early clinical and preclinical development, including our oncology program. Our preclinical and discovery programs are focused on the development of new treatments for multiple therapeutic areas, including neuromuscular disease and oncology. In April 2017, we acquired all rights to Emflaza from Marathon Pharmaceuticals, LLC (now known as Complete Pharma Holdings, LLC), or Marathon. As part of our business strategy, we may engage in further strategic transactions to expand and diversify our product pipeline, including through the acquisition of assets, businesses, or rights to products, product candidates or technologies or through strategic alliances or collaborations.

Global DMD Franchise

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD)

Muscular dystrophies are genetic disorders involving progressive muscle wasting and weakness. DMD is the most common and one of the most severe types of muscular dystrophy. DMD occurs when a mutation in the dystrophin gene prevents the cell from making a functional dystrophin protein. Dystrophin is a muscle membrane associated protein and is critical to the structural and membrane stability of muscle fibers in skeletal, diaphragm and heart muscle. The absence of normally functioning dystrophin results in muscle fragility, such that muscle injury occurs when muscles contract or stretch during normal use. As muscle damage progresses, connective tissue and fat replace muscle fibers, resulting in inexorable muscle weakness.

Because the dystrophin gene is located on the X chromosome, DMD occurs primarily in young boys, although approximately 10% of female carriers show some disease symptoms. DMD is rare, and estimates of occurrence include approximately 1 in every 3,500 live male births, according to Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy and approximately 1 in every 5,000 live male births according to Moat, et al. (2013) in the European Journal of Human Genetics. We estimate that there are approximately 10,000 DMD patients in the United States aged five years or older. Several different types of mutation in the dystrophin gene can result in DMD, including deletion, duplication and nonsense mutations. A test known as multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) can detect large deletions and duplications, which account for approximately 75% of all mutations. However, gene sequencing is required to identify small mutations such as nonsense mutations. We estimate that nonsense mutations account for approximately 13% of cases of DMD. Without treatment, patients with DMD typically lose walking ability by their early teens, require ventilation support in their late teens, and eventually experience premature death due to heart and lung failure. Even with medical care, most people with DMD die from cardiac or respiratory failure before or during their 30s.

Marketing authorization matters

Translarna for the treatment of nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy

European Economic Area

We received marketing authorization from the European Commission in August 2014 for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients aged five years and older in the 31 member states of the EEA. The marketing authorization is subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of continued authorization, which we refer to as the annual EMA reassessment, as well as our satisfaction of any specific obligation or other requirement placed upon the marketing authorization, including Study 041, a three-year clinical trial to confirm the efficacy and safety of Translarna in the approved patient population.

In January 2016, we submitted the final clinical study report from our Phase 3 clinical trial in nmDMD (referred to as ACT DMD) to the EMA in fulfillment of the initial specific obligation placed on our marketing authorization. The primary efficacy endpoint of ACT DMD was not achieved with statistical significance. We made our submission to the EMA as a type II variation request that sought to have this initial specific obligation to our marketing authorization removed and a full marketing authorization granted. In February 2016, we also submitted a marketing authorization renewal request with the EMA.

In January 2017, the European Commission renewed our marketing authorization based on the totality of the clinical data available from our trials and studies of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, including the safety and efficacy results of our Phase 2b and Phase 3 clinical trials, and our commitment to conduct and submit the results of Study 041 to the EMA by the end of the third quarter of 2021. The trial is comprised of two stages: an 18-month randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial followed by an 18-month open label extension period. See “Item 1. Business-Planned and ongoing clinical development of Translarna in nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy-Study 041” for further information regarding the specific obligation to the marketing authorization in the EEA. The authorization remains subject to the annual EMA reassessment, as the EMA did not grant our request for full marketing authorization. In June 2017, the European Commission renewed our marketing authorization, making it effective, unless extended, through August 5, 2018. In February 2018, we submitted a marketing authorization renewal request to the EMA.

Marketing authorization is required in order for us to engage in any commercialization of Translarna in the EEA, including through participation in the market access process and related pricing and reimbursement negotiations, on a country-by-country basis with each country in the EEA, and is also required to make Translarna available under early access programs, or EAP programs. There is substantial risk that if we are unable to renew our EEA marketing authorization during any annual renewal cycle, if our product label is materially restricted, or if Study 041 does not provide the data necessary to maintain our marketing authorization, we would lose all, or a significant portion of, our ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna in the EEA and other territories.

See “Item 1. Business-Commercial Matters-Market Access Considerations” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors-Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of our Product and our Product Candidates” and “-Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of our Product and our Product Candidates” for further information regarding the marketing authorization in the EEA, the market access process and related risks.

As the marketing authorization holder, we are obligated to monitor the use of Translarna for nmDMD to detect, assess and take required action with respect to information that could impact the safety profile of Translarna and to report this information, through pharmacovigilance submissions, to the EMA. Following its assessment of these submissions, the EMA can recommend to the European Commission actions ranging from the continued maintenance of the marketing authorization to its withdrawal.

We submitted our completed NDA to the FDA in December 2015 with our ACT DMD analyses, after commencing our submission on a rolling basis in December 2014. On February 22, 2016, we received a Refuse to File letter from the FDA stating that our NDA was not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review in particular because, in the view of the FDA, both the Phase 2b and Phase 3 ACT DMD trials were negative and do not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness and that our NDA does not contain adequate information regarding the abuse potential of Translarna. Additionally, the FDA stated that we had proposed a post-hoc adjustment of ACT DMD that eliminates data from a majority of enrolled patients. While other comments and requests were noted in the letter as items to be addressed if the NDA were to be resubmitted, the FDA specified that they were not related to its refusal to file our NDA.

Following the refusal to file of our NDA, we initiated dialogue with the FDA to discuss and clarify the matters set forth in the letter and determine our best path forward. In accordance with the formal dispute resolution process that exists within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research of the FDA, we filed a formal appeal of the Refuse to File letter, which was denied in October 2016. In the first quarter of 2017, we filed our Translarna NDA for nmDMD via the FDA’s file over protest regulations. We included additional retrospective and post hoc analyses from our clinical trials with the NDA filed in 2017, including analyses of the 6-minute walk test using alternative statistical and analytical methods and new analyses from the North Star Ambulatory Assessment test, a functional scale designed for boys affected by DMD. Filing over protest is a procedural path permitted by FDA regulations that allows a company to have its NDA filed and reviewed when there is a disagreement with regulators over the acceptability of the NDA submission.

In October 2017, the Office of Drug Evaluation I of the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter for the NDA, stating that it was unable to approve the application in its current form. In response, we filed a formal dispute resolution request with the Office of New Drugs of the FDA. In February 2018, the Office of New Drugs of the FDA denied our appeal of the Complete Response Letter. In its response, the Office of New Drugs recommended a possible path forward for our ataluren NDA submission based on the accelerated approval pathway. This would involve a re-submission of an NDA containing the current data on effectiveness of ataluren with new data to be generated on dystrophin production in nmDMD patients’ muscles. We intend to follow the FDA’s recommendation and will collect such dystrophin data using newer technologies via procedures and methods that will be mutually agreeable to us and the FDA. Additionally, should a re-submission of an NDA receive accelerated approval, the Office of New Drugs stated that Study 041, which is currently enrolling, could serve as the confirmatory post-approval trial required in connection with the accelerated approval pathway.

There is substantial risk that we will not be able to agree with the FDA on the procedures or methods to be used to collect dystrophin data or that any such studies will not provide the necessary data to support a marketing approval for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD.

In 2010, we filed a NDA for ataluren based on our Phase2b clinical data, which the FDA refused to file. We filed a formal dispute resolution request concerning this decision in 2011 and, in 2012, the FDA reaffirmed its previous decision to refuse to file the 2010 NDA. In its 2016 Refuse to File letter and in its 2017 Complete Response Letter and its denial of our appeal to the Complete Response Letter, the FDA referenced its prior refusal to file relative to the Phase 2b data and our early discussions with the FDA, reiterating the views previously expressed.

See “Item 1. Business-Government Regulation-The new drug approval, or NDA, process” below for further discussion with respect to the NDA process. See “Item 1. Business-Translarna™ (ataluren)” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors-Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of our Product and our Product Candidates” and “-Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of our Product and our Product Candidates” for further detail regarding the results of our completed trials and studies of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, our regulatory strategy in the United States, and the related risks to our business.

Other Territories

Translarna received marketing authorization for the treatment of nmDMD in Israel and South Korea in 2015 and these licenses are currently active. Many territories outside of the EEA, including Israel and South Korea, reference and depend on the determinations by the EMA when considering the grant of a marketing authorization. It is unlikely that we would be able to maintain our marketing authorizations in these regions in the event the EMA determines not to renew or otherwise modifies or withdraws our marketing authorization in the EEA. We have been pursuing and expect to continue to pursue marketing authorizations for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in other regions.

Emflaza for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States

Emflaza, both in tablet and suspension form, received approval from the FDA in February 2017 as a treatment for DMD in patients five years of age and older in the United States. We estimate that there are approximately 10,000 DMD patients in the United States aged five years or older. We are obligated to complete certain post-marketing requirements in connection with the FDA's approval, including pre-clinical and clinical safety studies.

We expect that Emflaza will have a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for the approved indication, commencing on the date of FDA approval, under the provisions of the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, or the Orphan Drug Act, as well as a concurrent five-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for the active ingredient in Emflaza under the provisions of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act. Additionally, because the FDA has requested that we conduct a pediatric study of Emflaza, we expect to be granted a term of pediatric exclusivity upon completion of an agreed-upon study. This additional exclusivity provides six months of marketing protection to the end of the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the seven-year orphan exclusivity period. See “Item 1. Business-Government Regulation-The new drug approval process-Hatch-Waxman exclusivity” “Item 1. Business-Government Regulation-Pediatric exclusivity” below for further discussion with respect to marketing protection we rely on.

Product development programs

Based on its understood mechanism of action, we believe that Translarna may have benefit in the treatment of patients with genetic disorders that arise as a result of a nonsense mutation. We are pursuing studies for Translarna in additional indications including nonsense mutation aniridia and nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5. We hold worldwide commercialization rights to Translarna for all indications in all territories. The EMA has designated Translarna as an orphan medicinal product and the FDA has granted orphan drug designation to Translarna for the treatment of DMD and aniridia. The FDA has granted orphan drug designation to RG7916 for the treatment of patients with SMA.

The following table summarizes key information about our most advanced product development programs that are being developed by us, or in collaboration with other pharmaceutical companies or independent investigators. All of the compounds in these programs are new chemical entities that we identified using our proprietary technologies.

The marketing authorization in the EEA includes the specific obligation to conduct and submit the results of Study 041 to the EMA by the end of the third quarter of 2021 and requires annual renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk profile of the authorization.

(2)

In its denial of our appeal of the Complete Response Letter, the Office of New Drugs recommended a possible path forward for the ataluren NDA submission based on the accelerated approval pathway. This would involve a re-submission of an NDA containing the current data on effectiveness of ataluren with new data to be generated on dystrophin production in nmDMD patients’ muscles. We intend to follow the FDA’s recommendation and will collect such dystrophin data using newer technologies via procedures and methods that will be mutually agreeable to us and the FDA. Additionally, the Office of New Drugs stated that Study 041, which is currently enrolling, could serve as the confirmatory post-approval trial required in connection with the accelerated approval framework.

(3)

PTC596 was generally well tolerated as a monotherapy, producing systemic concentrations in patients similar to or exceeding those associated with preclinical activity. Though a protocol-defined maximum tolerated dose was not reached, the dose of 10 mg/kg was deemed intolerable likely due to pill burden and certain excipients that may have contributed to Grade 2 nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in two of three patients.

We discovered Translarna by applying our technologies to identify molecules that promote or enhance the suppression of nonsense mutations. Nonsense mutations are implicated in a variety of genetic disorders. Nonsense mutations create a premature stop signal in the translation of the genetic code contained in messenger RNA, or mRNA, and prevent the production of full-length, functional proteins. Based on our research, we believe that Translarna interacts with the ribosome, which is the component of the cell that decodes the mRNA molecule and manufactures proteins, to enable the ribosome to read through premature nonsense stop signals on mRNA and allow the cell to produce a full-length, functional protein. As a result, we believe that Translarna has the potential to be an important therapy for genetic disorders which are the result of a nonsense mutation. Genetic tests are available for many genetic disorders, including those noted above, to determine if the underlying cause is a nonsense mutation. Translarna has been generally well tolerated in all of our clinical trials to date, which have enrolled over 1,000 individuals to date.

Planned and ongoing clinical development of Translarna in nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Phase 2 pediatric study

As part of our pediatric development commitments under our marketing authorization in the EEA and to support the potential expansion of the Translarna label to younger patients with nmDMD, we initiated a Phase 2 pediatric clinical study to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of Translarna in patients two to five years of age. The study, initiated in June 2016, includes a four-week screening period, a four-week study period, and a 48-week extension period for patients who complete the four-week study period (52 weeks total treatment). We have submitted to the EMA a label-extension request to our marketing authorization in the EEA to include patients from two to up to five years of age, which includes data from this study. However, there can be no assurances that we will successfully obtain such a label extension

Study 041

Overview. As a specific obligation to our marketing authorization in the EEA, we are required to conduct and submit to the EMA the results of a three-year clinical trial to confirm the efficacy and safety of Translarna in the treatment of ambulatory patients with nmDMD aged five years or older. The trial is comprised of two stages: an 18-month randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial followed by an 18-month open label extension period. We refer to the 18-month clinical trial portion as “Stage 1” and the 18-month extension period as “Stage 2”. We refer to Stage 1 and Stage 2 together as Study 041. As a condition to our marketing authorization, we are required to submit the results of Study 041 to the EMA by September 2021. The protocol for Study 041 has been approved by the CHMP.

For a discussion of the risks related to conducting clinical trials, in general, and Study 041, in particular, please see “Item 1A. Risk Factors-Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of our Product and our Product Candidates” ands “-Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of our Product and our Product Candidates”.

Enrollment. According to the study protocol, Study 041 will enroll nmDMD patients aged five years and above who achieve a 6-minute walk distance, or 6MWD, equal to or greater than 150 meters at three pre-treatment evaluation times (screening, baseline day one and baseline day two), tested as set forth in the protocol. Qualified participants will also need to perform timed function tests of running/walking 10 meters, climbing/descending four stairs and standing from supine within 30 seconds at both screening and baseline and meet the other criteria set forth in the protocol.

Of the approximately 250 patients planned to be enrolled in Study 041, approximately 160 patients are expected to meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary analysis population, which we refer to as the modified intention-to-treat population, or mITT. Patients included in the mITT must be at least 7, but less than 16, years old, with a 6MWD of equal to or greater than 300 meters and a stand from supine time of five seconds or more, each as tested at screening and baseline.

Objectives and endpoints. The primary objective of Study 041 is to evaluate the effect of Translarna on ambulation and endurance as assessed by the 6-minute walk test, or 6MWT. Based on the study protocol, the primary analysis of Stage 1 will evaluate the difference in slope of change in 6MWD from baseline to week 72 between Translarna and placebo in the mITT population. Data from participants who do not qualify for inclusion in the mITT will be used for summary and analysis of efficacy endpoints.

Slope of change in 6MWD over 144 weeks will also be assessed as a secondary endpoint at the conclusion of Stage 2, and the consistency of the results at 144 weeks against week 72 will be assessed. Changes in 6MWD from baseline to week 72 and week 144 respectively will also be assessed as secondary endpoints.

A secondary objective of Study 041 is to determine the effects of Translarna on ambulation and burst activity as assessed by timed function tests (10-meter run/walk, 4-stair stair-climb, and 4-stair stair descend). Each timed function test will be analyzed as a secondary endpoint for both the mITT and ITT populations, at the end of Stage 1 and Stage 2. A separate analysis will evaluate 10-meter run/walk results in participants with a baseline 6MWD below 300 meters. An additional analysis will evaluate a composite endpoint of average change in times to run/walk 10 meters, climb 4 stairs, and descend 4 stairs. We will also assess each of time to loss of ambulation, stair-climbing and stair-descending over 72 weeks and over 144 weeks.

Determination of the effects of Translarna on lower-limb muscle function as assessed by the North Star Ambulatory Assessment, or NSAA, a functional scale designed for boys affected by DMD, will serve as an additional secondary objective. NSAA scores will be analyzed as secondary endpoints for both the mITT and ITT populations, at the end of Stage 1 and Stage 2. A separate analysis for Stage 2 will evaluate changes in total score in participants with a baseline 6MWD of equal to or greater than 400 meters and under 7 years of age. We will also assess the risk of loss of NSAA items over 72 weeks and 144 weeks.

The safety profile of Translarna also will be evaluated throughout Stage 1 and Stage 2 as a secondary objective.

Certain exploratory endpoints will also be assessed in Study 041. In patients aged 7 years and above, change from baseline in upper limb function will be assessed using both functional testing and parent/caregiver-reported questionnaires. In patients under 7 years of age, muscle strength will be assessed by change from baseline in myometry parameters. At pre-qualified sites only, magnetic resonance imaging will be used to assess change from baseline in muscle fat fraction. The effects of Translarna on pulmonary function will be assessed by change from baseline in forced vital capacity. In addition, subject- and parent/caregiver-reported questionnaires and at-home diaries will assessed to evaluate the effect of Translarna on health-related quality of life (HRQL) changes from baseline.

Stratification. In Stage 1, participants will be randomized 1:1 to placebo or Translarna (10, 10, 20 mg/kg). The randomization will be stratified based on type of concomitant corticosteroid used at baseline (deflazacort versus prednisone/prednisolone), maximum of the two valid 6-minute walk tests performed at baseline day 1 and day 2 (<300 meters versus ≥300 to <350 meters, versus ≥350 to <400 meters, versus ≥400 meters), and time to stand from supine at baseline (<5 seconds versus ≥5 seconds).

Observational study, data collection, and open label, extension trials of Translarna for treatment of nmDMD

We are undertaking a multi-center, observational post-approval study of patients receiving Translarna on a commercial basis, as required by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee of the EMA and in collaboration with TREAT-NMD and the Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group. During the study we will gather data on the safety, effectiveness, and prescription patterns of Translarna in routine clinical practice.

Pursuant to the five-year managed access agreement entered into in July 2016 between us, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE, National Health Services England, or NHS England, and other interested parties, the NorthStar Network is collecting data on the efficacy of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD as measured by the NorthStar Ambulatory Assessment test. Patients receiving Translarna will be compared to an historical natural history population as well as a matched control group in order to assess response to treatment over the period specified in the managed access agreement.

An open label, extension trial involving patients who participated in ACT DMD is also ongoing, across multiple sites in the United States, Europe and other territories. Two open label extension trials involving patients from the United States, Europe, Israel, Australia, and Canada who had participated in our prior trials for nmDMD are also ongoing. In certain limited territories where Translarna is available via a commercial or EAP program, we have begun to wind down the studies and are investigating the potential impact that additional site closures may have on our research and development expense.

In October 2015, we announced results from ACT DMD, also referred to as Study 020, our Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 48-week clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Translarna in patients with nmDMD. ACT DMD involved 228 patients at 53 sites across 18 countries.

In the overall intent-to-treat, or ITT, study population, the primary endpoint of change from baseline at week 48 in the 6MWT, showed a 15 meter benefit in favor of Translarna, which did not meet statistical significance.

A summary of the safety and efficacy results from ACT DMD is outlined below.

Safety and tolerability. The results of ACT DMD confirmed the favorable safety profile of Translarna seen in our 48-week, 174-patient Phase 2b double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of Translarna in patients with nmDMD completed in 2009, or the Phase 2b trial.

Translarna was generally well tolerated in ACT DMD. There were two study discontinuations due to adverse events, including one in the Translarna arm (constipation) and one in the placebo arm (disease progression). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The most common adverse events in this trial were vomiting (20.4% overall), nasopharyngitis (20.0%), headache (18.3%), and fall (17.8%). These events were generally balanced across treatment arms and are typical of pediatric illnesses and/or patients with DMD. Adverse events with at least a 10% incidence in either treatment arm that were seen with increased frequency from the placebo group to the Translarna 40 mg dose group were vomiting (18.3% for placebo, 23.6% for the Translarna 40 mg group), nasopharyngitis (19.1% for placebo, 20.9% for the Translarna 40 mg group), fall (17.4% for placebo, 18.3% for the Translarna 40 mg group), cough (11.3% for placebo, 16.5% for the Translarna 40 mg group) diarrhea (8.7% for placebo, 17.4% for the Translarna 40 mg group), and pyrexia (10.4% for placebo, 13.9% for the Translarna 40 mg group). An overview of adverse events in this trial is shown in the table below.

There were no serious adverse events observed during the trial that were considered possibly or probably related to Translarna. Determination of relatedness of the serious adverse event to Translarna was made by the trial investigator, based on his or her judgment.

Intent to Treat (ITT) Population. The primary efficacy endpoint in ACT DMD was change in 6MWD from baseline to week 48. In the ITT population, a 15 meter benefit (p=0.213) was observed in the primary endpoint which did not meet statistical significance.

Secondary endpoints in the trial included the proportion of patients with at least 10% worsening in 6MWD at week 48 of the trial compared to baseline, or 10% 6MWD worsening, and change in timed function tests of time to run/walk 10 meters, climb four stairs and descend four stairs. The hazard ratio for Translarna versus placebo was 0.75 (p=0.160) for 10% 6MWD worsening. Benefits trended in favor of Translarna over placebo in the timed function tests in the ITT population, including observed results in time to run/walk 10 meters (1.2 seconds; p=0.117), time to climb four stairs (1.8 seconds; p=0.058), and time to descend four stairs (1.8 seconds; p=0.012).

Additional endpoints included the NSAA test and the Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument, or PODCI, a validated tool for measuring quality of life in pediatric patients with orthopedic conditions. These additional endpoints favored Translarna in the ITT population but did not meet statistical significance.

Pre-Specified Analyses. The statistical analysis plan submitted to the FDA for ACT DMD set forth pre-specified analyses of efficacy to be conducted, including subgroups of patients with baseline 6MWD less than 350 meters and patients with baseline 6MWD of greater than or equal to 300 and less than 400 meters, which we refer to as our key subgroups.

The pre-specification of our key subgroups was scientifically justified based upon knowledge of the biology and natural history of the disease and the evolving understanding of the of the six minute walk test as used to assess DMD patients. We considered the pre-specified less than 350 meter baseline 6MWD population as a key subgroup based on the knowledge that 350 meters represents a transition point for patients towards a more rapid decline in walking ability as supported by analysis from our Phase 2b trial. Furthermore, we considered the pre-specified 300 to 400 meter baseline 6MWD population as a key subgroup based on an increasing understanding of the sensitivity limitations of the six minute walk test as an endpoint in 48-week studies. Natural history data suggest that the 6MWT may not be the optimal tool to demonstrate efficacy in patients with either a baseline 6MWD of less than 300 meters, as these patients have significant muscle loss as monitored by magnetic resonance spectroscopy and are at high risk for losing ambulation regardless of treatment, or in high walking patients, such as those with a baseline 6MWD at or greater than 400 meters, as these patients are likely to remain stable over a 48 week testing period.

By defining these key subgroups, we thereby also defined corresponding subgroups of patients with baseline 6MWD greater than or equal to 350 meters, greater than or equal to 400 meters, and less than 300 meters. We also pre-specified a meta-analysis of the combined results from ACT DMD and the Phase 2b ambulatory decline phase patients.

Pre-specified sub-group analysis. We saw strong evidence of clinical benefit in the pre-specified subgroup of patients with baseline 6MWD between 300 and 400 meters. Specifically, we observed a benefit in Translarna-treated patients of 47 meters (nominal p=0.007) in the 6MWT in this subgroup. This was consistent with an observed benefit of 49 meters (nominal p=0.026) in our Phase 2b clinical trial in the 300 to 400 meters baseline 6MWD population. We also saw clinically meaningful benefit for Translarna over placebo in each of the timed function tests, including observed results in time to run/walk 10 meters (2.1 seconds; nominal p=0.066), time to climb four stairs (3.6 seconds; nominal p=0.003), and time to descend four stairs (4.3 seconds; nominal p<0.001). The hazard ratio for Translarna versus placebo was 0.79 (nominal p=0.418) for 10% 6MWD worsening. In addition, a benefit of 4.5 points over placebo (nominal p=0.041) was observed in the NSAA test, which we believe is clinically meaningful. We believe that the benefits observed in this key pre-specified subgroup support the use of the 6MWT in the patients with a walking ability in the 300 to 400 meters range and the understanding that the reliability of the 6MWT over a 48 week period was limited at both the lower and upper ends of our 6MWD enrollment range.

In the pre-specified subgroup of patients with baseline 6MWD less than 350 meters, we observed a benefit of 24 meters (nominal p=0.210) in favor of Translarna in the 6MWT. An analysis of the results from our Phase 2b clinical trial in the less than 350 meters baseline 6MWD population, defined post-hoc, demonstrated a 68 meter benefit in the 6MWT (nominal p=0.006). In the timed function tests for the subgroup of ACT DMD patients with baseline 6MWD less than 350 meters, we observed benefits for Translarna over placebo in time to run/walk 10 meters (2.3 seconds; nominal p=0.033), time to climb four stairs (4.2 seconds; nominal p=0.019) and time to descend four stairs (4.0 seconds; nominal p=0.007).

As described above, we believe the 6MWT lacks sensitivity to detect a clinical effect in patients with baseline less than 300 meters in a 48-week trial. However, the timed function tests trended in favor of patients treated with Translarna with a baseline 6MWD below 300 meters, including observed benefit over placebo in time to run/walk 10 meters (2.5 seconds; nominal p=0.066), time to climb four stairs (2.4 seconds; nominal p=0.790), and time to descend four stairs (2.1 seconds; nominal p=0.595). We believe the positive trends in this population reflect that short muscle burst activity tests may be a better clinical measure for patients that are at a more advanced stage of disease progression. Consistent with the natural history of ambulatory DMD patients with 6MWD greater than 400 meters, which indicates stability in walking ability over a 48 week period, we observed no meaningful difference in 6MWT between patient groups. Similarly, we observed no meaningful difference in 6MWT between patient groups with baseline 6MWD greater than 350 meters.

Pre-specified meta-analysis. The meta-analysis combined efficacy results from the ACT DMD ITT population and Phase 2b ambulatory decline phase subgroup. The Phase 2b ambulatory decline phase group includes the patients from our randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, Phase 2b clinical trial in patients with nmDMD who would have met the enrollment criteria of ACT DMD.

Additionally, the meta-analysis showed statistically significant benefit for Translarna over placebo across each timed function test including time to run/walk 10 meters (1.4 seconds; p=0.025), time to climb four stairs (1.6 seconds; p =0.018) and time to descend four stairs (2.0 seconds; p=0.004). The hazard ratio for Translarna versus placebo was 0.66 (p=0.023) for 10% 6MWD worsening. We believe that we are able to demonstrate a statistically significant efficacy outcome in the 6MWD in the meta-analysis, despite the significant variability in baseline 6MWD among patients in both ACT DMD and the Phase 2b ambulatory decline phase, due to the substantially larger patient population available in the pooled analysis.

Retrospective Analysis. We also looked back at the observed results in the meta-analysis for all patients with a baseline 300 to 400 meter 6MWD from ACT DMD and the Phase 2b trial. The meta-analysis of these data demonstrated a 45 meter benefit

(nominal p<0.001) in the 6MWT as well as clinically meaningful benefits across each secondary endpoint timed function test, including benefit over placebo in time to run/walk 10 meters (2.2 seconds; nominal p=0.008), time to climb four stairs (3.4 seconds; nominal p<0.001) and time to descend four stairs (4.3 seconds; nominal p<0.001). This meta-analysis of patients with baseline 6MWD of 300 to 400 meters was not pre-specified and is defined post-hoc.

Statistical Considerations. The pre-specified meta-analysis results, which favored Translarna in the 6MWT and each of the timed function tests, are considered statistically significant. In the pre-specified subgroups of ACT DMD patients with a baseline 6MWD less than 350 meters and 300 to 400 meters, the p-values for the 6MWT and each of the timed function tests are considered nominal. For information with respect to the use of nominal p-values and post-hoc analyses, see Item 1A. Risk Factors, “Our conclusions regarding the activity and potential efficacy of Translarna in nmDMD are primarily based on retrospective, subgroup and meta-analyses of the results of our Phase 2b and ACT DMD clinical trials of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. Other than with respect to certain of our meta-analyses, results of our analyses are expressed as nominal p-values, which are generally considered less reliable indicators of efficacy than adjusted p-values. In addition, retrospective analyses are generally considered less reliable than pre-specified analyses.”

Participation Criteria and Stratification. Certain key inclusion criteria were specified in the ACT DMD trial protocol for enrollment: the patient had to be 7 through 16 years of age; at the screening visit the patient had to be able to walk no more than 80% of predicted 6MWD compared to healthy boys matched for age and height, but had to be able to walk at least 150 meters during the 6MWT; and the patient must have used systemic corticosteroids for a minimum of six months prior to start of treatment. The ACT DMD trial protocol provided for the exclusion of patients from the trial if, among other things, they recently used systemic aminoglycoside antibiotics, recently initiated or changed corticosteroid therapy or previously received Translarna treatment. Patients enrolled in ACT DMD underwent 48 weeks of blinded treatment prior to the final analysis and the randomization was stratified based on age (<9 years versus ≥9), baseline 6MWD (<350 versus ≥350 meters), and duration of prior use of corticosteroids (<12 months versus ≥12 months).

Phase 2b clinical trial of Translarna for nmDMD

Overview. In March 2010, we announced the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, dose ranging Phase 2b clinical trial evaluating the long term efficacy and safety of Translarna in patients with nmDMD as confirmed by gene sequencing. We conducted this clinical trial in 174 patients in 11 countries. The primary objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect of Translarna on ambulation using 6MWD at week 48 of the trial compared to baseline as the primary efficacy endpoint. Supportive analyses of ambulation consisted of the proportion of patients with at least 10% worsening in 6MWD at week 48 of the trial compared to baseline and time to persistent 6MWD 10% worsening from baseline. Multiple additional secondary and exploratory endpoints, including, among others, tests of muscle function based on time to climb four stairs, descend four stairs, run/walk 10 meters and stand from supine, were monitored for the primary purpose of gaining a greater understanding of clinical trial design in DMD. We assessed safety through collection of adverse event information, measurement of laboratory parameters and performance of electrocardiograms, or ECGs. We also evaluated study drug compliance and Translarna plasma concentrations.

Patients enrolled in this trial were at least five years of age, had the ability at baseline to walk at least 75 meters unassisted during a 6MWT, had onset of disease signs/symptoms prior to age nine, had elevated creatine kinase levels, and had ongoing difficulty with walking. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a prior or ongoing clinically significant illness, had a positive hepatitis B or hepatitis C test or had recently used systemic aminoglycosides. Patients receiving corticosteroid therapy were required to have initiated therapy more than six months prior to enrollment and to be on a stable dosing regimen for at least three months prior to entering the trial. The trial protocol specified a clinic visit every six weeks to assess efficacy and safety and an interim laboratory visit every three weeks for the first 24 weeks of the trial. The treatment duration was 48 weeks.

Patients were stratified based on age, baseline 6MWD, and use of corticosteroids. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive (i) placebo; (ii) daily dose of 40 mg/kg of Translarna, or the 40 mg group; and (iii) daily dose of 80 mg/kg of Translarna, or the 80 mg group.

Pre-specified analysis in ITT population. We performed the primary analysis of the mean change in 6MWD from baseline to 48 weeks specified in the trial protocol in the ITT population. The ITT population included all 174 randomized patients with a valid 6MWT available at baseline and at least one post-baseline visit. Analysis of the results of the ITT population showed that patients in the 40 mg group had notably less decline in their walking ability than the patients taking placebo, with a difference of 29.7 meters between the 40 mg group and placebo in mean change in 6MWD over 48 weeks. Although this result was consistent with the clinically meaningful treatment effect of 30 meters specified in the trial protocol, the resulting nominal p-value of 0.149 was not statistically significant at the pre-specified level of less than 0.05. Typically, a trial result is statistically significant if the chance of it occurring when the treatment is like placebo is less than one in 20, resulting in a p-value of less than 0.05. A nominal p-value is the result of one particular comparison when more than one comparison is possible, such as when two active treatments are compared to placebo or when two or more subgroups are analyzed.

In addition, ITT population analysis showed that there was no difference between patients in the 80 mg group from placebo in mean change in 6MWD over 48 weeks. Although unanticipated, this finding is consistent with a bell-shaped dose-response curve that we observed in four subsequent non-clinical studies of Translarna in DMD and other genetic disorders. Under analysis of the ITT population, pre-specified measurements of supportive analyses of ambulation were not reached in any of the three treatment arms of the trial.

Post-hoc analyses of Phase 2b clinical trial data. Based on our further evaluation of the data from our Phase 2b clinical trial after unblinding the results, we identified three issues affecting the pre-specified statistical analyses. We addressed these issues in a post-hoc, retrospective refinement to the pre-specified statistical analysis plan, resulting in what we refer to as a corrected ITT analysis.

•

Our pre-specified statistical model used to calculate the p-value and significance of the trial results omitted a specific statistical term designed to address the potential relationship between the 6MWD results at baseline and at each subsequent patient visit. As has now become standard practice in analyses of repeated-measures data, we adjusted our statistical model to add this statistical term in preparing the corrected ITT analysis.

•

Because the 6MWD data were non-normally distributed, our pre-specified analysis used rank-transformed data in which the 6MWD values for each patient were ordered from smallest to largest and ranked from one to 174. However, ranking the data in this way did not fully reflect the large variability as measured in meters that we observed in the original 6MWD data. In the corrected ITT analysis, we used a re-randomization test, rather than rank transformation of the data, to address non-normality of the trial data. This re-randomization test allowed analysis of the 6MWD results in meters, rather than ranking the results relative to one another, to more accurately reflect the large variability in walking distances.

•

Two patients had lower limb injuries after screening but prior to their baseline assessment. These injuries substantially affected their walking ability and led to aberrantly low baseline 6MWD values. These baseline 6MWT were incorrectly classified as valid by the investigative site, and the resulting data should not have been included in the ITT analysis. In the corrected ITT analysis, we replaced the baseline values for these two patients with their valid screening values.

The results of our post-hoc analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint of this trial are shown in the table below.

In the corrected ITT analysis, the difference between the 40 mg group and placebo group in mean change in 6MWD over 48 weeks was 31.3 meters. We observed clear separation between the 40 mg group and placebo group, with the difference between the arms increasingly favoring the 40 mg group over time. The resulting nominal p-value for the comparison of mean change in 6MWD from baseline to week 48 for the 40 mg group versus placebo was 0.0281. However, because two dose levels were compared to placebo, we were required to apply a multiplicity adjustment, which yielded a final adjusted p-value of 0.0561 for the 40 mg group versus placebo.

Although we believe that our additional analyses of the trial results were warranted, a retrospective analysis performed after unblinding trial results can result in the introduction of bias if the analysis is inappropriately tailored or influenced by knowledge of the data and actual results. In addition, nominal p-values cannot be compared to the benchmark p-value of 0.05 to determine statistical significance without being adjusted for the testing of multiple dose groups or analyses of subgroups. Because of these limitations, regulatory authorities typically give greatest weight to results from pre-specified analyses and adjusted p-values and less weight to results from post-hoc, retrospective analyses and nominal p-values.

Secondary endpoints. Patients in the 40 mg group trended better than the placebo group in several of the secondary endpoints tracked during this trial, however the trial was not powered to detect statistically significant differences in secondary endpoints. Patients in the 40 mg group exceeded the clinically meaningful threshold of 1.5 seconds for stair-climbing and stair- descending in the ITT analysis and for running/walking in the corrected ITT analysis. In a supine to stand test, we did not observe any

difference between Translarna and placebo. Other secondary endpoints showed trends favoring patients treated with Translarna, but at levels below a threshold considered to be clinically meaningful, including: muscle strength (tested through myometric evaluations), frequency of falls (based on patients/caregiver notation), and health related quality of life and treatment satisfaction (based on patient reports).

Safety and tolerability. Translarna was generally well tolerated at both dose levels in our Phase 2b clinical trial. There were no study discontinuations due to adverse events. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Investigators’ attributions of drug-related adverse effects were generally similar across the placebo and Translarna arms. The most common adverse events in this trial were vomiting (46.6% overall), headache (29.3%), diarrhea (24.1%), nasopharyngitis (20.7%), fever (19.0%), cough (19.0%) and upper abdominal pain (17.8%). These events were generally balanced across treatment arms and are typical of pediatric illnesses. Adverse events with at least a 10% incidence in any treatment arm that were seen with increased frequency from the placebo group to the Translarna 40 mg dose group to the Translarna 80 mg dose group were nausea (12.3% for placebo, 14.0% for the Translarna 40 mg group and 16.7% for the Translarna 80 mg group), abdominal pain (7.0% for placebo, 12.3% for the Translarna 40 mg group and 16.7% for the Translarna 80 mg group), pain in extremity (10.5% for placebo, 12.3% for the Translarna 40 mg group and 13.3% for the Translarna 80 mg group), flatulence (7.0% for placebo, 8.8% for the Translarna 40 mg group and 11.7% for the Translarna 80 mg group) and nasal congestion (7.0% for placebo, 8.8% for the Translarna 40 mg group and 10.0% for the Translarna 80 mg group). An overview of adverse events in this trial is shown in the table below.

There were no serious adverse events observed during the trial that were considered possibly or probably related to Translarna. Determination of relatedness of the serious adverse event to Translarna was made by the trial investigator, based on his or her judgment.

Phase 2a clinical trial of Translarna for nmDMD

In October 2007, we announced the results of an open label Phase 2a clinical trial evaluating Translarna in 38 patients with nmDMD. The primary objective of this trial was to obtain indications of pharmacological activity. The primary efficacy endpoint in this trial was the change from baseline measurement of dystrophin levels in a muscle in the foot known as the extensor digitorum brevis. nmDMD patients enrolled in this trial were at least five years of age, had increased levels of serum creatine kinase, or CK, and had absent or diminished dystrophin protein on muscle biopsy. All participants in the trial received Translarna treatment for 28 days at one of three varying doses (12 mg/kg/day, 40 mg/kg/day and 80 mg/kg/day). In this trial, Translarna induced a mean 11.0% increase in muscle dystrophin expression over the 28 days of treatment, with 23 of the 38 patients (61%) showing an increase from baseline. We observed serum CK reductions in 35 of the 38 patients (92%) at the end of treatment. With cessation of Translarna treatment, mean serum CK concentrations reverted toward baseline. Changes in myometry scores and timed function tests were small and not statistically significant with 28 days of Translarna treatment. Anecdotal reports from the parents and teachers of several boys noted evidence of greater activity, increased endurance and less

fatigue during Translarna administration. Pharmacokinetic results from this trial indicated that both the 40 mg/kg/day and the 80 mg/kg/day dose regimens achieved plasma concentrations of Translarna that were predicted to have a therapeutic effect, based on preclinical data. The 12 mg/kg/day regimen did not consistently achieve these levels, and as a result we did not include this dosing regimen in our subsequent Phase 2b clinical trial.

TranslarnaTM for additional indications

Over the last seven years multiple independent investigators have conducted preclinical studies in which Translarna enabled readthrough of the premature stop codons from a large set of nonsense mutations across a diverse group of experimental models exhibiting various genetic disorders. The studies evaluated the ability of Translarna to read through premature stop codons in mRNA in cell-free systems, transfected cell lines, mouse models and patient cells. Based on these studies by independent investigators in addition to our own trials and studies, we expect to continue to pursue additional indications for Translarna, including aniridia caused by nonsense mutation and, via an investigator initiated study, Dravet syndrome/CDKL5 caused by nonsense mutation.

Nonsense mutation aniridia

Aniridia is a genetic disorder due to mutations in the PAX6 gene associated with ocular anatomical defects at birth, progressive loss of eyesight, and other symptoms. We estimate that approximately one-third of all aniridia cases are due to a nonsense mutation. In a prior study conducted by an independent investigator, Translarna-treated mice with nonsense mutation aniridia showed a significant increase in the PAX6 protein in a nonsense mutation PAX6 gene, but not in mice with a PAX6 gene harboring a splice-site mutation. The investigators in this study found that Translarna not only inhibited disease progression, but also reversed corneal, lens and retinal defects and restored electrical responses of the retina.

The first patient in our clinical study of Translarna in nonsense mutation aniridia, which we refer to as STAR, was dosed in February 2016. STAR is a Phase 2, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of Translarna in patients with aniridia caused by a nonsense mutation, followed by an open-label extension study. Patients will receive blinded study drug for 48 weeks followed by open-label Translarna for another 96 weeks. The open label portion of the study was extended from the initially planned 48 weeks to 96 weeks as our knowledge of the disease and endpoint evolved from when the study was originally initiated. Safety and efficacy will be assessed. We have completed enrollment for our aniridia study and anticipate results during 2019.

Nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5

Dravet syndrome and CDKL5 are two different genetically defined disorders of epilepsy. Dravet syndrome, also called severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy, is a debilitating form of epilepsy caused by mutations in the sodium voltage gated channel a1 subunit gene required for the proper function of brain cells. People with Dravet syndrome experience frequent seizures and developmental delays. CDKL5 is caused by a mutation of the Cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5) gene leading to a lack of the protein critical in brain development. CDKL5 is characterized by seizures starting early in life and severe developmental impairment.

A clinical study assessing Translarna in nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5 was initiated in the first quarter of 2017.

Nonsense mutation Mucopolysaccharidosis type I (nmMPS I)

MPS I is an inherited genetic disorder caused by a deficiency in an essential enzyme that is responsible for the breakdown of glycosaminoglycans, or GAGs, byproducts of chemical reactions in the body’s cells. It is estimated that 60 percent to 80 percent of cases of MPS I are caused by a nonsense mutation.

A clinical study assessing Translarna in nonsense mutation MPSI was initiated in 2015. In the third quarter of 2017 we stopped enrollment and began to wind down our study for Translarna in mucopolysaccharidosis type I caused by nonsense mutation, or nmMPS I, as we encountered difficulties identifying qualified patients for this study.

Spinal muscular atrophy program

Spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, is a genetic neuromuscular disease characterized by muscle wasting and weakness. The disease generally manifests early in life. SMA is caused by mutation or deletion of the Survival of Motor Neuron 1, or SMN1, gene that encodes the survival of motor neuron, or SMN, protein. The SMN protein is critical to the health and survival of the nerve cells in the spinal cord responsible for muscle contraction. A second gene, SMN2, is very similar to SMN1, except that SMN2 contains a T nucleotide at position 6 in exon 7 that results in alternative splicing and production of reduced levels of functional SMN protein. According to the SMA Foundation, SMA is the leading genetic cause of death in infants and toddlers and that one in approximately 11,000 children is born with the disease. We estimate that SMA affects approximately 20,000 to 30,000 children and adults in the United States, Europe and Japan.

Using our alternative splicing technology and in collaboration with the SMA Foundation, we identified highly potent small molecule splicing modifiers that, in non-clinical studies in cultured cells derived from patients with SMA, increased both the inclusion of exon 7 in the SMN2 mRNA and the levels of SMN protein produced by SMN2. Importantly, in studies in transgenic mice carrying only the SMN2 gene, these orally bioavailable compounds, penetrate the blood-brain barrier and increase the levels of full-length SMN2 mRNA and protein in brain, spinal cord, muscle and other tissues. In these same mouse studies, treatment with these compounds resulted in increased survival, restoration of body weight, prevention of motor neuron loss and improved motor function.

In November 2011, we entered into a collaboration and licensing agreement with Roche which included a $30 million upfront payment, the potential for up to $460 million in milestone payments and royalties on net sales. Roche is responsible for pursuing clinical development of compounds from the research program under the collaboration and then commercializing any resulting products. A lead development compound, RG7800, was selected to move into IND-enabling studies in August 2013, triggering a milestone payment to us from Roche of $10 million. In 2014, we received two milestone payments from Roche totaling $17.5 million, one in January 2014 upon the initiation of a Phase 1 clinical study of RG7800 and in November 2014, upon the initiation of a Phase 2 clinical study of RG7800. In October 2017, we received a $20 million milestone payment from Roche upon the transition into the pivotal second part of the Sunfish study. We also previously received $13.3 million in sponsored research funding for this program from the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Foundation.

RG7800 was formerly the subject of a Phase 2 randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study called Moonfish in adult and pediatric patients with SMA. Results from the first cohort in Moonfish, which included 16 adult and adolescent SMA patients, demonstrated that SMN protein can be increased with RG7800, providing proof of mechanism for oral small molecule SMN2 splicing modifiers. Up to three-fold increases in the ratio of full length SMN2 mRNA to SMN2Ä7 mRNA and up to two-fold increases in SMN protein were observed versus baseline, as measured in whole blood. RG7800 was well tolerated over 12 weeks at a dose of 10 mg once daily. In addition, a dose-dependent effect on SMN2 alternative splicing was observed in a previous Phase 1 clinical study of RG7800 in healthy volunteers.

Dosing in the Moonfish trial was suspended in April 2015 and the trial was placed on clinical hold to investigate retinal toxicity observed in a longer term monkey nonclinical safety study. Although RG7800 remains a potential product candidate under the SMA program, the Moonfish trial was terminated in December 2016.

A different compound in the SMA collaboration, RG7916, is currently being advanced in development. In October 2016, a two-part clinical study, called Sunfish, initiated in pediatric and adult type 2 and type 3 SMA patients to investigate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of RG7916. Both parts of Sunfish are double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and randomized. Part one of the study was a dose-finding study in 51 type 2 and type 3 SMA patients randomized 2:1 RG7916 vs. placebo and treated for 12 weeks with the primary objective of evaluating the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of RG7916 in patients. As presented at the International Scientific Congress on Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Kraków, Poland in January 2018, RG7916 was well tolerated at all doses assessed. There have been no deaths and no drug-related safety findings leading to withdrawal. Bi-monthly ophthalmological monitoring did not show any evidence of retinal toxicity seen in preclinical monkey studies with RG7800. Adverse events were mostly mild, resolved despite ongoing treatment and were reflective of the underlying disease. RG7916 produced a dose-dependent increase in SMN2 FL mRNA and a concomitant decrease in SMN2Ä7 mRNA. SMN protein was increased in a dose-dependent manner up to a median of 2.5-fold. Increases in SMN protein were sustained up to 250 days.

Based on the results from part one of Sunfish, dosing for the second part of the study was selected and the pivotal part two of Sunfish initiated in October 2017, which triggered a $20 million milestone payment to us from Roche. Part one of Sunfish is currently recruiting globally 168 type 2 and type 3 SMA patients who are randomized 2:1 RG7916 vs. placebo for 12 months followed by 12 months of all study participants receiving RG7916 with the primary objective of efficacy of RO7034067 compared to placebo in terms of motor function in Type 2 and non-ambulant Type 3 SMA patients, as assessed by the change from baseline in the total score of the motor function measure (MFM) at 12 months. Both part one and part two of the study will be followed by an open-label extension.

Early interim data from Part 1 of the Sunfish study were also presented at the International Scientific Congress on Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Kraków, Poland in January 2018. In type 1 SMA patients RG7916 was well tolerated at all doses and there have been no drug-related safety findings leading to withdrawal. Ophthalmologic monitoring did not show any evidence of the retinal toxicity seen in preclinical monkey studies in any patient exposed to RG7916. Early interim clinical data indicated that no patient lost the ability to swallow and no patient has required tracheostomy or reached permanent ventilation.

In December 2016, a two-part clinical study, called Firefish, also initiated in infants with type 1 SMA. Part one of Firefish is an open-label, dose escalation study in 8 to 24 infants for a minimum of 4 weeks. The primary objective of part one is to assess the safety profile of RG7916 in infants and determine the dose for part two.

Part two is an open-label, single-arm study in approximately 40 infants with type 1 SMA for 24 months. The primary objective of part two is to assess the efficacy of RG7916 measured as the proportion of infants sitting without support after 12 months of treatment, as assessed in the Gross Motor Scale of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler development - Third Edition (BSID-III) (defined as sitting without support for 5 seconds). We anticipate that Firefish will move into the pivotal second part of the study in the first quarter of 2018.

Jewelfish, an open-label study investigating the safety, tolerability, PK, and PK/pharmacodynamic relationship of RG7916 in type 2 and type 3 SMA patients who have been previously treated with a survival of motor neuron 2 (SMN2)-targeting therapy, initiated in the first quarter of 2017. As recently presented at the International Scientific Congress on Spinal Muscular Atrophy in Kraków in January 2018, preliminary PD data from three Jewelfish patients showed increases in SMN2 FL/SMNÄ7 mRNA ratio and SMN protein increases of up to 4-fold.

Oncology program

Our product candidate PTC596 is a first-in-class, orally bioavailable and potent small molecule that targets solid tumor cell populations by reducing the activity and amount of BMI1. Elevated levels of BMI1 are associated with aggressive, difficult to treat tumors and a poor prognosis for patients in a wide variety of cancers, including glioblastoma. Notably, PTC596 was specifically developed to cross the blood-brain barrier to allow PTC596 to target tumors within the central nervous system as well. In animal models of cancer using xenografted human tumors, twice-weekly oral dosing of PTC596 provided tumor control, including reduction of tumor size. PTC596 in pairwise combinations with commonly used chemotherapeutic agents such as paclitaxel, DTIC, doxorubicin and gemcitabine effectively controlled tumor growth in these animal models. PTC596 is well tolerated at therapeutically effective doses in animals.

A Phase 1 first-in-human, dose-escalation safety and pharmacokinetic open-label clinical study of PTC596 in advanced cancer patients with solid tumors was initiated in April 2015 and completed in the first quarter of 2017. PTC596 was generally well tolerated as a monotherapy, producing systemic concentrations in patients similar to or exceeding those associated with preclinical activity. Though a protocol-defined maximum tolerated dose was not reached, the dose of 10 mg/kg was deemed intolerable due to pill burden and occurrence of Grade 2 nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in two of three patients. Data from this study and continued clinical development of PTC596, including reformulation efforts, are expected during 2018.

We received grant funding of $5.4 million for our oncology program from the Wellcome Trust. To the extent that we develop and commercialize program intellectual property on a for-profit basis ourselves or in collaboration with a partner (provided we retain overall control of worldwide commercialization), we may become obligated to pay to Wellcome Trust development and regulatory milestone payments. Our first such milestone payment of $0.8 million to Wellcome Trust occurred in the second quarter of 2016. For additional information, see “Item 1. Business - Our Collaborations and Funding Arrangements”.

Pre-clinical and other programs

We continue to invest in our pre-clinical product pipeline by committing significant resources to research and development programs and business development opportunities within our areas of scientific expertise, including potential collaborations, alliances, and acquisitions or licensing of assets that complement our strategic mission to leverage our knowledge of RNA biology to bring novel therapeutics to patients affected by rare and neglected disorders.

Scientific Background of Post-Transcriptional Control Processes

Post-transcriptional control processes are the events that occur in a cell following the transcription of DNA into RNA. These processes regulate, for example, how long RNA molecules last in the cell, how precursor messenger RNA, or pre-mRNA, molecules are spliced, and how efficiently mRNA molecules are translated to produce a protein.

In the majority of human protein-encoding genes, the sequence representing the mature mRNA transcript is not contiguous but rather has an interrupted structure consisting of nucleotide sequences that are removed from the final mRNA product (these sequences are called introns) and nucleotide sequences that are retained in the mature mRNA (exons). The process of intron removal and exon joining is called splicing.

An mRNA contains multiple regions that have specific functions. Although the protein coding region of mRNA contains the information for the amino acid sequence of the protein product, several regions of mRNA do not code for the protein and are known as untranslated regions, or UTRs. They are unique to specific mRNAs or groups of mRNAs and are directly involved in the post-transcriptional control of protein production. Interactions of cellular factors with the UTRs on the mRNA determine when and how much protein is produced as well as how mRNA is degraded and eliminated from the cell.

Our approach to drug discovery and development is to target systematically post-transcriptional control processes by small molecule therapeutics. We believe that focusing on post-transcriptional control processes will enable us to both address known drug targets through new mechanisms of action and to pursue a broad range of targets that have previously not been amenable to drug discovery. We believe that a large number of promising post-transcriptional control drug targets remain unexploited, providing a significant opportunity for our integrated and systematic approach to drug discovery. This approach has broad applicability to address intractable drug targets in a wide variety of diseases for which there is an unmet medical need, including genetic disorders and cancer.

Our RNA Biology Focused Small Molecule Technology Platform

We have developed and assembled an integrated set of proprietary technologies focused on our understanding of RNA biology for the discovery of small molecules that target post-transcriptional control processes. Our technologies enable us to screen our compound library against targets in many different therapeutic areas in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. Our efforts span from target identification and characterization to the identification of selective lead molecules. From these lead molecules, our research team undertakes a chemical optimization program designed to select an appropriate development candidate. We refer to our technologies as GEMS (gene expression modulation by small-molecules), alternative splicing, and nonsense suppression.

Alternative splicing

We use our alternative splicing technology to identify molecules that modulate splicing of the pre-mRNA. Pre-mRNA splicing is a multi-step biochemical reaction. Approximately 94% of all human genes encode pre-mRNAs that undergo splicing. In addition, through alternative splicing, one gene can often generate several mRNA products by including or excluding exons that can result in the mRNA being regulated differently or translated into different proteins. Altered regulation of alternative splicing is the direct cause of many human diseases, including many forms of cancer, SMA, Riley-Day syndrome (familial dysautonomia) and myotonic dystrophy.

We have developed a powerful high-throughput drug discovery technology that enables us to identify small molecule modifiers of pre-mRNA splicing. The technology relies on a sensitive quantification of mRNA directly in human cells or tissue samples. Using this technology, we have successfully identified orally bioavailable small molecules that correct splicing of the Survival of Motor Neuron 2, or SMN2, mRNA, which is implicated in the genetic disorder SMA. Based on this experience, we believe that other small molecule drug candidates can be rapidly identified that correct alternative splicing of pre-mRNA, promote inclusion of specific exons into mRNA or force skipping of undesired exons from the mature mRNA. We believe that this technology is potentially widely applicable to a large number of target genes in all therapeutic areas.

GEMS

We use our GEMS technology to identify molecules that modulate gene expression by targeting the post-transcriptional control processes that act through the UTRs of mRNA molecules. The UTRs of mRNA can have important roles in regulating protein production because they contain the instructions for determining the protein production efficiency and how long a given mRNA molecule will remain within the cell before being degraded.

Target proteins of potential biological and medical relevance to human disease are assessed for the prevalence of regulation through the unique UTRs. Once a target is selected, we precisely define the UTR and generate proprietary assays to screen our library of compounds to identify those that enhance or inhibit expression of the target gene by modulating the post-transcriptional control processes that act through the 5’- and 3’- UTRs of the target mRNA.

Nonsense suppression

We use our nonsense suppression technology to identify molecules that promote or enhance readthrough of premature stop codons in the mRNA. The presence of a premature stop codon results in translation termination before a full-length protein can be produced. Our nonsense suppression technologies identify small molecules that increase readthrough at the premature stop codon by facilitating the incorporation of a defined set of amino acids at the site of the premature stop codon resulting in the production a full-length protein. We anticipate that this approach will be applicable to a wide variety of therapeutic areas.

In addition to identifying molecules that increase readthrough, we are identifying molecules that can enhance the nonsense suppression effect of Translarna and other readthrough agents by preventing the decay of nonsense-mutation containing mRNAs, a process known as nonsense mediated decay. We have developed a high throughput screen to identify molecules that increase the level of and stabilize premature stop codon-containing mRNAs. We can evaluate the effect of these molecules alone and in combination with Translarna in cell-based models of disease, identify lead compounds and initiate a chemical optimization program. We are currently in the process of evaluating compounds as single agents and in combination with readthrough compounds in preparation for an optimization program.

We currently have ongoing collaborations with Roche and the SMA Foundation. We also have received grant funding from Wellcome Trust pursuant to funding agreements under which we have continuing obligations. In addition to these material collaboration and funding agreements, which are described in more detail below, during 2015 we announced our research collaboration with Massachusetts General Hospital, or MGH, a Partners Healthcare hospital, for the treatment of rare genetic disorders resulting from pre-mRNA splicing defects pursuant to which we have certain licensing, development and commercialization obligations to MGH.

Roche and the SMA Foundation

Overview. In November 2011, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Roche and the SMA Foundation to further develop and commercialize compounds identified under our SMA sponsored research program with the SMA Foundation and to research other small molecule compounds with potential for therapeutic use in patients with SMA. The research term of this agreement was terminated effective December 31, 2014. The ongoing collaboration is governed by a joint steering committee consisting of an equal number of representatives of us, the SMA Foundation and Roche. We, the SMA Foundation and Roche have agreed to endeavor to make decisions by consensus, but if the joint steering committee cannot reach agreement after following a specified decision resolution procedure, Roche’s decision will control. However, Roche may not exercise its final decision-making authority with respect to certain specified matters, including any decision that would increase our or the SMA Foundation’s obligations, reduce our or the SMA Foundation’s rights, expand Roche’s rights, or reduce Roche’s obligations under the license and collaboration agreement.

Commercialization. We have granted Roche worldwide exclusive licenses, with the right to grant sublicenses, to our patent rights and know-how with respect to such compounds and products. Roche is responsible for pursuing worldwide clinical development of compounds from the research program and has the exclusive right to develop and commercialize compounds from the collaboration.

Payments and Contingent Payments. Pursuant to the license and collaboration agreement, Roche paid us an upfront non-refundable payment of $30.0 million. During the research term, which was terminated effective December 31, 2014, Roche provided us with funding, based on an agreed- upon full-time equivalent rate, for an agreed-upon number of full- time equivalent employees that we contributed to the research program. We are eligible to receive up to an aggregate of $135 million in payments if specified development and regulatory milestones are achieved and up to an aggregate of $325 million in payments if specified sales milestones are achieved. As of December 31, 2017, we have earned $47.5 million of these development and regulatory milestone payments based on the progression of the collaboration from the pre-clinical stage to Phase 2 clinical study in SMA patients. We are also entitled to tiered single-digit to mid-teen royalties on worldwide net product sales of products developed pursuant to the collaboration. Roche’s obligation to pay us royalties will expire generally on a country-by- country basis at the latest of the expiration of the last-to-expire patent covering a product in the given country, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity for that product in such country or 10 years from the first commercial sale of that product in such country. However, the royalties payable to us may be decreased in certain circumstances. For example, the royalty rate in a particular country is reduced if the product is not protected by patents in that country and no longer entitled to regulatory exclusivity in that country. We remain responsible for making any payments to the SMA Foundation that may become due under our pre-existing sponsored research agreement with the SMA Foundation.

Termination. Unless terminated earlier, the license and collaboration agreement will expire on the date when no royalty or other payment obligations are or will become due under the agreement. Roche’s termination rights under the license and collaboration agreement include the right to terminate the agreement at any time after November 22, 2013 on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon three months’ notice before the launch of the applicable product or upon nine months’ notice thereafter; and the right to terminate the agreement in specified circumstances following a change of control of us. The license and collaboration agreement provides that we or Roche may terminate the agreement in the event of an uncured breach by the other party of a material provision of the agreement, or in the event of the other party’s bankruptcy or insolvency. Upon termination of the collaboration agreement by Roche for convenience or termination by us as a result of Roche’s breach, bankruptcy, change of control or patent challenge, we have the right to assume the development and commercialization of product candidates arising from the license and collaboration agreement. In that event, we may become obligated to pay royalties to Roche on sales of any such product.

SMA Foundation

Overview. In June 2006, we entered into a sponsored research agreement with the SMA Foundation under which we and the SMA Foundation have collaborated in the research and preclinical development of small molecule therapeutics for SMA. As discussed above, we are also collaborating with the SMA Foundation and Roche to further develop these compounds. Pursuant

to the sponsored research agreement, as amended, the SMA Foundation provided us with $13.3 million in funding. The SMA Foundation is not obligated to provide any further funding under this agreement.

Continuing financial obligations. We may become obligated to pay the SMA Foundation single-digit royalties on worldwide net product sales of any collaboration product that we successfully develop and subsequently commercialize or, if we outlicense rights to a collaboration product, a specified percentage of certain payments we receive from our licensee. As discussed above, we have outlicensed rights to Roche pursuant to a license and collaboration agreement. We are not obligated to make such payments unless and until annual sales of a collaboration product exceed a designated threshold. Our obligation to make such payments would end upon our payment to the SMA Foundation of a specified amount, which we refer to as the repayment amount.

Reversion rights. In specified circumstances, including those involving our decision to discontinue development or commercialization of a collaboration product, our uncured failure to meet agreed timelines or those that might arise following our change of control, we may be obligated to grant the SMA Foundation exclusive or non-exclusive sublicensable rights under our intellectual property, in certain collaboration products, among other rights, to assume the development and commercialization of such collaboration products and to provide the SMA Foundation with other transitional assistance, which we refer to as a reversion. In some such cases, we may be entitled to receive licensing fee payments from the SMA Foundation and single-digit royalties on sales of the applicable collaboration product, which amounts we collectively refer to as reversion payments. In other cases, the SMA Foundation is not required to make any payments to us in connection with the licenses it receives from us.

Termination. Unless terminated earlier, the sponsored research agreement will continue until the earliest of the SMA Foundation’s receipt of the repayment amount or, if there was a reversion, either our receipt of all reversion payments that the SMA Foundation may be obligated to make to us or, if the SMA Foundation is not obligated to make reversion payments, the expiration of the last-to-expire patent we licensed to the SMA Foundation in connection with such reversion. The sponsored research agreement provides that either party may terminate the agreement in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or in the event of the other party’s bankruptcy or insolvency.

Wellcome Trust

We have two separate funding agreements with Wellcome Trust for the research and development of small molecule compounds in connection with our oncology and antibacterial programs. Pursuant to the agreement relating to the antibacterial program, Wellcome Trust awarded us a $5.0 million grant of which we received $4.8 million between 2011 and 2015. We are no longer actively pursuing an antibacterial program and do not expect to receive additional funding under this agreement. The materials terms of these funding agreements are similar in substance, except as described below.

The other agreement, entered into in May 2010, relates to the research and development of small molecule compounds, which we refer to as our oncology program. Pursuant to this agreement, Wellcome Trust awarded us a $5.4 million grant, of which approximately $0.9 million was paid in connection with execution of the agreement and the balance of which was paid to us in 2010 and 2012 based on our achievement of specified milestones.

Development and commercialization. We own all intellectual property that arises from the conduct of the research programs under these funding agreements, which we refer to as program intellectual property, and are responsible for developing and commercializing the program intellectual property, including PTC596 (for our oncology program), and other compounds. However, we will require Wellcome Trust’s written consent prior to any such development or commercialization. If Wellcome Trust withholds such consent and we and Wellcome Trust are not able to resolve Wellcome Trust’s concerns, the parties have agreed to follow a specified dispute resolution procedure that gives neither party final decision-making authority.

Reversion rights. Under both funding agreements, if we fail to take reasonable steps to develop or commercialize program intellectual property during specified timeframes, we may be obligated to grant exclusive rights to Wellcome Trust or its nominee under the program intellectual property, along with non-exclusive rights under our background intellectual property, so that Wellcome Trust or its nominee can assume such development and commercialization. If we grant such a license, we would be entitled to a share of any consideration received by Wellcome Trust in connection with any subsequent development or commercialization of program intellectual property on a for-profit basis, which share would be proportionate to our contribution to the development and commercialization.

Continuing financial obligations-oncology program. To the extent that we develop and commercialize program intellectual property on a for-profit basis ourselves or in collaboration with a partner (provided we retain overall control of worldwide commercialization), we may become obligated to pay to Wellcome Trust development and regulatory milestone payments and single-digit royalties on sales of any research program product under our oncology program. We made the first development milestone payment of $0.8 million to Wellcome Trust under this agreement during the second quarter of 2016. Additional development and regulatory milestone payments up to an aggregate of $22.4 million may become payable by us under the

agreement. For example, in the event a Phase 2 clinical study of a research program candidate, such as PTC596, is commenced, a milestone payment of $2.5 million would become payable by us to Wellcome Trust upon the earlier to occur of the first dose administered to the last patient enrolled in the study or the termination of dosing of all patients in the study.

Additional continuing financial obligations. Our obligation to pay the royalties describe above would continue on a country-by-country basis until the longer of the expiration of the last patent in the program intellectual property in such country covering the research program product and the expiration of market exclusivity of such product in such country. To the extent that we develop and commercialize program intellectual property on a for-profit basis through outlicensing, we will be obligated to pay to Wellcome Trust a specified share of any consideration we receive from our licensee, provided that Wellcome Trust would be entitled to receive a minimum amount equal to its original contribution. We would incur no payment obligations to Wellcome Trust to the extent that we elect to develop and commercialize program intellectual property on a non-profit basis.

Termination. Unless terminated earlier, each funding agreement will continue until we have received the full amount of the grant, the research program has ended, the last-to-expire of the patents in the program intellectual property has expired, any agreement entered into for the exploitation of the program intellectual property or our background intellectual property has expired, and there are no remaining payment obligations relating to the exploitation of the program intellectual property or our background intellectual property. Each funding agreement provides that either party may terminate the agreement in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or in the event of the other party’s bankruptcy or insolvency and that Wellcome Trust may terminate the agreement under specified circumstances, including, among others, in specified circumstances following a change in control of us or if Wellcome Trust believes that an uncorrected serious failure exists in the progress, management or conduct of the research program or that an act or omission by us is incompatible with or has an adverse effect on Wellcome Trust’s charitable objectives or reputation.

If Wellcome Trust terminates either or both funding agreements in specified circumstances, including as a result of our material breach, bankruptcy or insolvency, or following our change of control, we may be obligated to assign to Wellcome Trust ownership of the applicable program intellectual property, grant to Wellcome Trust royalty-free non-exclusive rights under the applicable background intellectual property for the continuation of the research program (if applicable) and the development and commercialization of the applicable program intellectual property, and provide Wellcome Trust with other specified transitional assistance.

Certain specified rights and obligations of the parties will generally survive termination of the funding agreements, including Wellcome Trust’s right to receive payments from us with respect to development and commercialization of program intellectual property on a for-profit basis.

If a funding agreement terminates prior to the end of a research program, we are obligated to return all funding we received from Wellcome Trust that is unspent at the date of termination (after deduction of costs and non-cancellable commitments incurred prior to such date).

Intellectual Property

Patents and trade secrets

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and certain foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development of our business, where patent protection is available. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

As of January 31, 2018, our patent portfolio included a total of 100 active U.S. patents and 22 pending U.S. patent applications, including original filings, continuations and divisional applications, as well as numerous foreign counterparts to many of these patents and patent applications. We own or exclusively in-license these patents and patent applications with claims directed to the composition of matter, pharmaceutical formulation and methods of use of many of our compounds, including ataluren, the active ingredient in the formulated product TranslarnaTM.

The patent rights relating to TranslarnaTM (ataluren) owned by us consist of 32 issued U.S. patents relating to composition of matter, methods of use, formulation, dosing regimen and methods of manufacture and multiple pending patent applications relating to composition of matter, methods of use, formulation, and dosing regimen. We do not license any material patent rights relating to ataluren to unaffiliated parties. The issued U.S. patents relating to composition of matter are currently scheduled to expire in 2024 and all U.S. patents that issue from U.S. patent applications arising from the composition of matter would also be scheduled to expire in 2024. Issued U.S. patents relating to therapeutic method of use are currently scheduled to expire in 2026 and 2027, including patent term adjustment. We have patent rights that are the subject of granted patents or

pending counterpart patent applications in a number of other jurisdictions, including Canada, South America, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and Eurasia. We own nine granted European patents relating to composition of matter, uses, dosing regimen and methods of manufacture of ataluren, as well as multiple pending European patent applications relating to composition of matter, uses and formulations. The expiration dates of the granted and allowed European patents occur for composition of matter in 2024, for dosing regimen patents in 2026 and 2027, and for the manufacturing process in 2027. Except as indicated above, the anticipated expiration dates referred to above are without regard to potential patent term extension, patent term adjustment or other marketing exclusivities that may be available to us.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a U.S. patent that covers a drug, biological product or medical device approved pursuant to a pre-market approval, or PMA, may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date set for the patent. Patent extension based on Hatch-Waxman cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be granted an extension and only those claims reading on the approved drug may be extended.

Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. One means of patent term extension in Europe after EMA approval is based on obtaining a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC). We have applied for SPCs for ataluren in all applicable European countries in which we have a European patent and expect that all will be granted. The maximum patent term extension provided by an SPC is a total of 5 years from the date of patent term expiration. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval by the FDA or other non-European foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those products, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each drug and other factors.

We presently have no patent rights to protect the approved use of Emflaza, and we rely on non-patent market exclusivity periods under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, or the Orphan Drug Act, and the Drug Price Competition and the Hatch-Waxman Act to commercialize Emflaza in the United States. See “Item 1. Business-Government Regulation-Hatch-Waxman exclusivity” for further information regarding the exclusivity periods that we rely on.

We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

License agreements

We are a party to a number of license agreements under which we license patents, patent applications and other intellectual property from third parties. We enter into these agreements to augment our proprietary intellectual property portfolio. The licensed intellectual property covers some of the compounds that we are researching and developing, some post-transcriptional control targets and some of the scientific processes that we use. These licenses impose various diligence and financial payment obligations on us. We expect to continue to enter into these types of license agreements in the future.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing or distribution facilities for the production of clinical or commercial quantities of Translarna, Emflaza or for our other product candidates or compounds that we are testing in our preclinical programs. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture, packaging, labeling and distribution of clinical and commercial supplies of Translarna, Emflaza as well as any other product or product candidate that we may develop, other than small amounts of compounds that we may synthesize ourselves for preclinical testing.

The active pharmaceutical ingredients in Translarna. Emflaza and our product candidates are provided by third-parties. We currently rely on a single source for the production of some of our raw materials and we obtain our supply of the drug substance

for Translarna from two third-party manufacturers and the drug substance for our oncology program through another third-party manufacturer.

We engage two separate manufacturers to provide bulk drug product for Translarna. We have a relationship with three manufacturers that are capable of providing fill and finish services for our finished commercial and clinical Translarna product, although we are still in the process of finalizing arrangements with one of these manufacturers with respect to commercial product services.

We do not currently have any agreements with third-party manufacturers for the long-term commercial supply of Translarna or any of our product candidates, although we may seek to establish such arrangements in the future. We may be unable to conclude agreements for commercial or clinical supply with third-party manufacturers, or may be unable to do so on acceptable terms.

We currently obtain our supplies of Translarna and our other product candidates from our third-party manufacturers pursuant to agreements that include specific supply timelines and volume expectations. If a manufacturer should become unavailable to us for any reason, we would seek to obtain supply from another manufacturer engaged by us for the applicable product or service. In the event that we were unable to procure the applicable supply from a validated manufacturer, we believe that there are a number of potential replacements for each of our outsourced services, however we likely would experience delays in our ability to supply Translarna to patients or in advancing our clinical trials while we identify and qualify replacement suppliers.

We obtain our supply of the drug substance for Emflaza through a third-party manufacturer that is currently the only third-party manufacturer qualified to provide Emflaza drug substance. All of our drug product manufacturing, processing and packaging needs for Emflaza tablet and suspension product are fulfilled pursuant to two different exclusive supply agreements assumed by us in connection with our acquisition of Emflaza. We expect to fulfill all of our requirements for Emflaza tablets as well as secondary packaging of pre-filled Emflaza oral suspension bottles pursuant to one of these agreements, which has an initial term of five years. We expect to fulfill all of our requirements for Emflaza suspension product pursuant to the other agreement. Through the seventh year anniversary of FDA approval of Emflaza, we are obligated to pay to the manufacturer of the Emflaza suspension product royalty payments, on a quarterly basis, based on a percentage (ranging from low to middle-low double digits) of, or a fixed payment with respect to, our annual net sales of suspension product in the United States, subject to reduction in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The royalty payments for the suspension product are subject to a minimum aggregate annual payment ranging from €0.5 million to €1.5 million per year.

If our drug substance provider or either of our drug product manufacturers was to be unable to provide drug substance or manufacture Emflaza product in sufficient quantities to meet projected demand, future sales could be adversely affected, which in turn could have a detrimental impact on our ability to maintain our marketing authorization in the United States and on our ability to commercialize Emflaza, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial results and results of operations. Further, as we presently have no patent rights to protect the approved use of Emflaza, we expect to rely market exclusivity periods available to us under the Orphan Drug Act and Hatch-Waxman Act to commercialize Emflaza for DMD in the United States. As the holder of orphan exclusivity, we are required to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of Emflaza to meet the needs of patients. Failure to do so could result in loss of the drug's orphan exclusivity in the United States, which would have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from sales of Emflaza.

All of our drug candidates are organic compounds of low molecular weight, generally called small molecules. We have selected these compounds not only on the basis of their potential efficacy and safety, but also for their ease of synthesis and reasonable cost of their starting materials. Translarna is manufactured in reliable and reproducible synthetic processes. Our raw materials are not scarce and are readily available. We currently rely on a single source for the production of some raw materials and switching to an alternative source could, in some instances, take time and could lead to delays in manufacturing. No shortages or delays of raw materials were encountered in 2017, and none are currently expected in 2018. The chemistry is amenable to scale up and does not require unusual equipment in the manufacturing process. We expect to continue to develop drug candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at contract manufacturing facilities.

Manufacturers and suppliers of product candidates are subject to the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, requirements, and other rules and regulations prescribed by foreign regulatory authorities. We depend on our third-party suppliers and manufacturers for continued compliance with cGMP requirements and applicable foreign standards.

We currently have a contract with a pharmacy and hospital distributor in the European Union that distributes Translarna for clinical programs and limited commercial and EAP programs. We have engaged with third party logistic providers, or 3PLs, which distribute Translarna for the majority of our commercial and EAP programs on our behalf.

We utilize third parties for the commercial distribution of Emflaza, including a 3PL to warehouse Emflaza as well as a specialty pharmacy to sell and distribute Emflaza to patients. The specialty pharmacy provides us with third-party call center services to

The research and development expenses in each of our last three fiscal years is provided in Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Financial information about our net product revenues, net loss per share attributable to our common stockholders and our total assets are provided in our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Commercial Matters

Sales and marketing team

Our product revenue has been attributable to sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in territories outside of the United States and to sales of Emflaza for treatment of DMD in the United States. In addition to the United States and multiple European countries, we have employees in Latin America and Canada. As of December 31, 2017, our commercial team was comprised of approximately 100 employees, including support personnel and members of our commercial team who work with physicians, patient advocacy groups and other stakeholders who are involved in the treatment of patients suffering from DMD and nmDMD.

In addition, in select territories, we have engaged full time consultants, marketing partners and distribution partners to assist us with our international commercialization efforts for Translarna. We continue to evaluate new territories to determine in which geographies we might, if approved, choose to commercialize Translarna ourselves and in which geographies we might choose to collaborate with third parties. We expect that our internal team and partnership network will continue to grow, as needed, to maximize access to patients.

Customers

During 2017, our product revenue was attributable to Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and to Emflaza for treatment of DMD. Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD was available on a commercial basis or via reimbursed EAP programs in multiple territories outside of the United States. In some territories orders for Translarna are placed directly with us and in other territories we have engaged with third-party distributors. As a result, orders for Translarna are generally received from hospital and retail pharmacies and, in some cases, one of our third-party partner distributors. Our third-party distributors act as intermediaries between us and end-users and do not typically stock significant quantities of Translarna. The ultimate payor for Translarna is typically a government authority or institution or a third-party health insurer. The payment terms are generally 30 to 90 days after receipt of products.

Emflaza for treatment of DMD is available on a commercial basis throughout the United States. We utilize a single, exclusive specialty pharmacy to sell and distribute Emflaza to patients. The specialty pharmacy receives prescription orders for Emflaza directly from physicians and ships Emflaza directly to the end-user upon fulfillment of the order. As such, there is very little inventory of Emflaza stocked. The ultimate payor for Emflaza is typically a state health insurance program or a third-party health insurer. The payment terms are generally 30 to 90 days after receipt of products.

During 2017, over 10% of our net product sales were attributable to orders from three of our distributors. Financial information about our net product revenues and other revenues generated in the principal geographic regions in which we operate and our long-lived assets is set forth in our financial statements and in Note 14, “Geographic Information” to our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Translarna and Emflaza can generally only be returned if agreed upon in writing by us and the product is not opened nor in receipt by the final user, except in the case of quality issues associated with the product. Product is generally shipped when a specific patient is approved by the applicable government or insurer and an individual prescription has been written. The right of return is eliminated as a matter of course when the product is dispensed to patients. We have never had a request for a product return for either Translarna or Emflaza.

In some countries, including those in Latin America, orders for named patient sales may be for multiple months of therapy, which can lead to an unevenness in orders which could result in significant fluctuations in quarterly net product sales.

Geographical Information

We view our operations and manage our business in one operating segment. As of and for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, we have $49.2 million, $1.2 million, and $5.2 million, respectively, in U.S. based revenue. As of and for the

years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, we have $145.2 million, $81.5 million, and $31.6 million, respectively, in non-U.S. based revenue.

Market Access Considerations

Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD is currently available on a commercial basis in Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom (including England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales). Commercial drug is also currently available in Germany, subject to the matters discussed below. We consider Translarna to be commercially available when a reference price for the drug is established in the applicable country and we are permitted to market treatment to patients.

Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD is also currently available through EAP programs in select countries where funded named patient or cohort programs exist, both within the EEA and in other territories. These programs generally reference the EMA’s determinations with respect to our marketing authorization in the EEA. As of today, Translarna is available under EAP or similar styled programs in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Cyprus, Ecuador, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Kuwait, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. Generally, EAP programs allow for access to Translarna pursuant to a named patient program, under which a physician requests access to Translarna on behalf of the specific, or “named” patient or pursuant to a cohort program, which allows for a broader temporary authorization for use for nmDMD meeting the inclusion criteria. Our EAP programs are named patient or similar styled programs in all territories other than France, which is a cohort program.

Our ability to make Translarna available via commercial or EAP programs is dependent upon our ability to maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients aged five years and older. The marketing authorization is subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA as well as the specific obligation to conduct and submit the results of Study 041. See “Item 1. Business-Marketing authorization matters for Translarna in nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy-European Economic Area” and “Risk Factors-Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of our Product and our Product Candidates” for further information regarding the marketing authorization in the EEA and related risks.

Our future revenues from Translarna, Emflaza and any other product candidates we may develop, depends largely on our ability to obtain and maintain reimbursement from governments and third-party insurers. Each country in the EEA has its own pricing and reimbursement regulations and many countries in the EEA have other regulations related to the marketing and sale of pharmaceutical products in the applicable country. The pricing and reimbursement process varies from country to country and can take a substantial amount of time from initiation to complete. As a result, our commercial launch in the EEA has been and is expected to continue to be on a country-by-country basis and we generally will not be able to commence commercial sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD pursuant to our marketing authorization in the EEA in any particular member state of the EEA until we conclude the applicable pricing and reimbursement negotiations and comply with any licensing, employment or related regulatory requirements in that country.

We have submitted pricing and reimbursement dossiers with respect to Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in key EEA countries and have received both pricing and reimbursement approval on terms that are acceptable to us in a number of countries. The price that is approved by local governmental authorities pursuant to commercial pricing and reimbursement processes may be lower than the price that can be realized for purchases of product in that country pursuant to a reimbursed early access program.

In some instances, reimbursement may be subject to challenge, reduction or denial by the government and other payers. For example, in France, EAP programs and commercial sales of a product can begin while pricing and reimbursement rates are under discussion with the applicable government health programs. In the event that the negotiated price of the product is lower than the amount reimbursed for sales made prior to the conclusion of price negotiations, we may become obligated to repay such excess amount to the applicable government health program. Such retroactive reimbursement would be made following the conclusion of price negotiations with the applicable government health authority.

We delisted Translarna from the German pharmacy ordering system, effective April 1, 2016, based on unsustainable pricing established by the arbitration board in Germany. However, patients and healthcare professionals in Germany have generally been able to access Translarna through a reimbursed importation pathway possible under German law. There can be no assurance that all such patients will continue to be successful in obtaining reimbursed access to Translarna.

In England, our pricing and reimbursement negotiations took place between mid-2014 to mid-2016, and culminated in a five-year managed access agreement between us, NHS England, NICE, and other interested parties. The managed access agreement establishes the clinical details surrounding the use of Translarna, including the confidential financial terms and the collection of further data on the efficacy of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD with NICE guidance to be reviewed again at the end of the five-year period, before future funding decisions are taken.

For Emflaza, we are engaged in pricing, coverage and reimbursement discussions with third-party payors, such as state and federal governments, including Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private commercial insurance plans and pharmacy benefit management plans. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and the amount of reimbursement to be provided for Emflaza are made on a plan-by-plan, and in some cases, on a patient-by-patient basis. Coverage and reimbursement decisions by third-party payors, including the processing and adjudication of prescriptions, may vary from weeks to several months. Certain third-party payors routinely impose additional requirements before approving reimbursement of a prescription, including prior authorization and the requirement to try another therapy first. The specialty pharmacy we utilize provides patient services program to support product access and, when eligible, out-of-pocket assistance.

We record revenue net of estimated third party discounts and rebates. Allowances are recorded as a reduction of revenue at the time revenues from product sales are recognized. These allowances are adjusted to reflect known changes in factors and may impact such allowances in the quarter those changes are known.

For important information regarding market access and pricing and reimbursement considerations see “Item 1. Business-Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors-Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of our Product and our Product Candidates” and “-Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of our Product and our Product Candidates”.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technologies, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including commercial pharmaceutical and biotechnology enterprises, academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Many of our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected because in some cases insurers or other third-party payors seek to encourage the use of generic products. This may have the effect of making branded products less attractive, from a cost perspective, to buyers.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of Translarna, Emflaza and our other product candidates are likely to be its efficacy, safety, convenience, price and the availability of coverage and reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

The competition for Translarna, Emflaza and our other product candidates includes the following:

•

Translarna for nmDMD. There is currently no marketed therapy, other than Translarna in the EEA, which has received approval for the treatment of the underlying cause of nmDMD. Sarepta Therapeutics recently received approval in the United States for a treatment addressing the underlying cause of disease for different mutations in the DMD gene. Other biopharmaceutical companies are developing treatments addressing the underlying cause of disease for different mutations in the DMD gene (Sarepta, Daiichi Sankyo, and Nippon Shinyaku).

•

Translarna for Other Indications. Diacomit is marketed in the European Union by Laboratoires Biocodex for the treatment of Dravet syndrome. Other companies are also pursuing product candidates for the treatment of Dravet syndrome, including GW Pharmaceuticals, Zogenix, and Insys Therapeutics. Aniridia therapeutic interventions, such as artificial iris implantation, are being developed by HumanOptics AG.

•

Emflaza for DMD. The FDA has not approved a corticosteroid specifically for DMD in the United States other than Emflaza. However, prednisone, which is not approved for DMD in the United States, is generically available and has been prescribed off label for DMD patients.

•

Spinal Muscular Atrophy Collaboration. Our SMA collaboration with Roche and the SMA Foundation also faces competition. For example, in December 2016, the FDA approved nusinersen, a drug developed by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and marketed by Biogen, to treat SMA. AveXis, Inc. is also evaluating a gene therapy product

candidate for the treatment of SMA. Other companies are also pursuing product candidates for the treatment of SMA, including Trophos (also in collaboration with Roche), Kowa, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Cytokinetics.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, quality control, approval, manufacturing, labeling, post-approval monitoring and reporting, recordkeeping, packaging, promotion, storage, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors-Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of our Product and our Product Candidates” for important information regarding some of the risks to our business arising as a result of government regulation.

U.S. government regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and implementing regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable FDA requirements at any time pre- or post-approval may result in a delay of approval or administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s imposition of a clinical hold on trials, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, issuance of warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

The new drug approval process

Failures to comply with the applicable FDA requirements at any time during the product development process or approval process may result in a delay of approval or administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s imposition of a clinical hold on trials, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, issuance of warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

In the United States, the information that must be submitted to the FDA in order to obtain approval to market a new drug varies depending upon whether the drug is a new product whose safety and efficacy have not previously been demonstrated in humans or a drug whose active ingredients and certain other properties are the same as those of a previously approved drug. A New Drug Application, or NDA, is the vehicle through which the FDA approves a new pharmaceutical product for sale and marketing in the United States.

To market a new drug in the United States, a sponsor generally must undertake the following:

•

completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies under the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice, or GLP, regulations and other applicable laws or regulations;

•

submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application, or IND, for clinical testing, which must become effective before clinical trials may begin;

•

approval by an independent Institutional Review Board, or IRB, prior to initiation and subject to continuing review;

•

completion of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials in accordance with Good Clinical Practices, or GCP, and the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, or ICH, E6 GCP guidelines, to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each of its proposed indications;

•

submission and FDA acceptance of an NDA, or satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee meeting, if applicable;

•

satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, which require that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity; and

•

FDA review and approval of the NDA.

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, stability, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. In order to begin clinical testing, a sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA, which includes, among other things, the

results of the preclinical tests, manufacturing information, analytical data, proposed clinical protocols, and any available clinical data or literature on the drug product. Some preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. The IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. An IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about issues such as the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns or questions before clinical trials can proceed. In other words, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators. Clinical trials are conducted in accordance with protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. All research subjects or their legally authorized representatives must provide their informed consent in writing prior to their participation in a clinical trial. Each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB and is subject to ongoing IRB monitoring. The IRB must approve the protocol, protocol amendments, and the informed consent form. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, to be publicly posted on the Clinicaltrials.gov website.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Phase 1 clinical trials may be conducted in patients or healthy volunteers to evaluate the product’s safety, dosage tolerance and pharmacokinetics and, if possible, seek to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. Phase 2 clinical trials usually involve controlled trials in a larger but still relatively small number of subjects from the relevant patient population to evaluate dosage tolerance and appropriate dosage; identify possible short-term adverse effects and safety risks; and provide a preliminary evaluation of the efficacy of the drug for specific indications.

Phase 2 clinical trials are sometimes denoted by companies as Phase 2a or Phase 2b clinical trials. Phase 2a clinical trials typically represent the first human clinical trial of a drug candidate in a smaller patient population and are designed to provide earlier information on drug safety and efficacy. Phase 2b clinical trials typically involve larger numbers of patients or longer durations of therapy and may involve comparison with placebo, standard treatments or other active comparators.

Phase 3 clinical trials usually further evaluate clinical efficacy and test further for safety in an expanded patient population. Phase 3 clinical trials usually involve comparison with placebo, standard treatments or other active comparators. These trials are intended to establish the overall risk- benefit profile of the product or product candidate and provide an adequate basis for physician labeling. Phase 3 clinical trials are usually larger, more time consuming, more complex and more costly than Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials.

Clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA, the sponsor, or a data safety monitoring board may suspend or terminate clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are or would be exposed to an unreasonable and significant risk of illness or injury. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial if the trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the research has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. The FDA typically requires that an NDA include data from two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, but approval may be based upon a single adequate and well-controlled clinical trial plus confirmatory evidence. In some cases, the FDA may condition approval of an NDA on the applicant’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the drug’s safety and effectiveness after NDA approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 studies.

The FDA’s accelerated approval process allows for potentially faster development and approval of certain drugs intended to treat serious or life- threatening illnesses that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments. Under the accelerated approval process, the adequate and well-controlled clinical trials conducted with the drug establish that the drug has an effect on a “surrogate” endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on the basis of an effect on a clinical benefit other than survival or irreversible morbidity. Drugs approved through the accelerated approval process are subject to certain post-approval requirements, including that the applicant complete Phase 4 clinical trials to demonstrate the drug’s clinical benefit. If the trials fail to verify the clinical benefit of the drug, the FDA may withdraw approval of the application through a streamlined process.

The FDA has explained in guidance that some drugs are dependent upon the use of an in vitro diagnostic test, such as when the use of the drug is limited to a specific patient subpopulation that can be identified by using the test. The guidance refers to the diagnostic tests used with these types of drugs as in vitro companion diagnostic devices. According to the guidance, in vitro companion diagnostic devices may require the submission and approval of a preauthorization application before they are marketed. Some in vitro companion diagnostic devices, however, could potentially be cleared through a 510(k) premarket notification submission. The guidance states that the FDA generally will not approve a drug that is dependent upon the use of an in vitro companion diagnostic device if no such device is FDA- approved or -cleared for the relevant indication. According to the guidance, however, the FDA may approve such a drug without an approved or cleared in vitro companion diagnostic

device when the drug is intended to treat a serious or life- threatening condition for which no satisfactory alternative treatment exists and the FDA determines that the benefits from the use of drug with an unapproved or uncleared in vitro companion diagnostic device are so pronounced as to outweigh the risks from the lack of an approved or cleared in vitro companion diagnostic device. Because of the severity of dystrophinopathies and the lack of satisfactory available treatments, the FDA confirmed in its recently-issued guidance that it may approve a drug even if an in vitro companion diagnostic device has not yet been approved or cleared, if the benefits from the drug are so pronounced to outweigh the risks posed by the lack of an approved or cleared in vitro companion diagnostic device. The FDA guidance documents represent the FDA’s current thinking on a topic but do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities.

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and of the clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including proposed labeling and information on the chemistry, manufacture and composition of the product, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. In most cases, the NDA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee, though a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the FDA’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review.

If the FDA determines that the NDA is incomplete, the FDA may refuse to file the application. If the FDA refuses to file an NDA, the applicant may request an informal conference with the FDA about whether the application should be filed. After the conference, the applicant may request that the application be filed over protest. When an application is filed over protest, the FDA is required to review the application as filed. Generally, the FDA does not favor the file over protest procedure and the FDA’s policies explain that an application filed over protest does not receive a timeline for review and is designated a standard review.

In addition, an applicant that receives an RTF can, in some circumstances, appeal the decision using the FDA’s dispute resolution procedures. After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA has 12 months after submission of an NDA in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA and respond to the applicant, and eight months for a priority review NDA. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for review of NDAs. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by additional three month review periods whenever the FDA requests or the NDA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission at any time during the review cycle.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, NDAs or supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. As the FDA has not issued regulations applying PREA to orphan-designated indications, submission of a pediatric assessment is not presently required for an application to market a product for an orphan-designated indication. However, PREA compliance may be required if approval is sought for other indications for which the drug has not received orphan designation.

The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP before approving an NDA. The FDA also will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the product is manufactured before the NDA is approved. The FDA will not approve the product unless current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, compliance is satisfactory. The FDA may also take into account results of inspections performed by certain counterpart foreign regulatory agencies in assessing compliance with GCP or cGMP. The FDA has entered into international agreements with foreign agencies, including the EMA, in order to facilitate this type of information sharing. If the FDA determines the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information.

Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and may take years to complete. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all.

We may encounter difficulties or unanticipated costs in our efforts to secure necessary FDA approvals, which could delay or prevent us from marketing our products. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The advisory committee process may cause delays in the approval timeline. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully, particularly any negative recommendations or limitations, when making drug approval decisions.

The FDA may limit the indications for use, approve narrow labeling relegating a drug to second- line or later-line use, add limitations of use to the labeling or place other conditions on approvals, which could restrict the marketing of the products. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, which may themselves require further clinical testing, or changing the manufacturing process are subject to further FDA review and approval.

Post-approval requirements.

After FDA approval of a product is obtained, we are required to comply with a number of post-approval requirements, including, among other things, establishment registration and product listing, record-keeping requirements, reporting certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, providing updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling. As a condition of approval of an NDA, the FDA may require the applicant to conduct additional clinical trials or other post market testing and surveillance to further monitor and assess the drug’s safety and efficacy.

The FDA also has the authority to require a drug-specific risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to ensure the safe use of the drug. In determining whether a REMS is necessary, the FDA must consider the size of the population likely to use the drug, the seriousness of the disease or condition to be treated, the expected benefit of the drug, the duration of treatment, the seriousness of known or potential adverse events, and whether the drug is a new molecular entity. A REMS may be required to include various elements, such as a medication guide or patient package insert, a communication plan to educate health care providers of the drug’s risks, limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug, or other measures that the FDA deems necessary to assure the safe use of the drug. The REMS strategy must be approved by the FDA. In addition, the REMS must include a timetable to assess the strategy at 18 months, three years, and seven years after the strategy’s approval. The FDA may also impose a REMS requirement on an approved drug if the FDA determines, based on new safety information, that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the drug’s benefits outweigh its risks.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Although physicians may prescribe a drug for off-label uses, manufacturers may only promote the drug for the approved indications and in accordance with the approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with the laws and regulations governing advertising and promotion can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, warning and untitled letters from the FDA, requests for corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Similarly, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, regulates the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical drugs, requiring passage of a pedigree to track and trace each prescription drug at the saleable unit level through the distribution system. The DSCSA added new sections in the FDCA that require manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, dispensers, and third-party logistics providers to take steps to identify and trace certain prescription drugs to protect against the threats of counterfeit, stolen, contaminated, or otherwise harmful drugs in the supply chain. Among other mandates, the DSCSA requires manufacturers and repackagers to affix or imprint a unique product identifier (comprised of a standardized numerical identifier, lot number, and expiration date of the product) on certain prescription drug packages in both a human-readable and on a machine-readable data carrier. The standardized numerical identifier is comprised of the product’s corresponding National Drug Code combined with a unique alphanumeric serial number. A drug product is misbranded if it does not bear the product identifier as required by Section 582 of the FFDC Act. Section 582 also establishes several requirements relating to the verification of product identifiers. Implementation of the product identifier requirements has imposed and will continue to impose increased costs and administrative burdens and may lead to potential liability associated with the marketing and sale of drug products subject to these requirements. The DSCSA will become effective incrementally over a 10-year period, with serialization of prescription drug products distributed in the U.S. effective as of November 27, 2017 for drug manufacturers. The PDMA, DSCSA, and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Also, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to cGMP after approval. The FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMP, which imposes certain procedural, substantive and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our product and product candidates. Future FDA inspections may identify compliance issues at our facilities or at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, discovery of problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable requirements may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including withdrawal or recall of the product from the market or other voluntary, FDA-initiated or judicial action that could delay or prohibit further marketing.

Once approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if issues bearing on the product’s safety or efficacy are discovered. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data or other information may also require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. New government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established that could delay or prevent FDA approval of our products under development or negatively impact the marketing of any future approved products.

Orphan drug designation.

We have received orphan drug designation from the FDA for Translarna for the treatment of nonsense mutation cystic fibrosis, or nmCF, nmDMD, nmMPS I, and nonsense mutation aniridia. The FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a “rare disease or condition,” which is defined as a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. Orphan drug designation can provide opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and FDA user-fee benefits. In addition, if a product which has an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. However, competitors may receive approval of different drugs or biologics for the indications for which the orphan product has exclusivity. The FDA awarded an orphan drug designation to Emflaza for the treatment of patients with DMD and approved Emflaza on February 9, 2017 as the first corticosteroid approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with DMD, granting Emflaza orphan drug exclusivity for this disease as of the date of approval.

Hatch-Waxman exclusivity.

As we presently have no patent rights to protect the approved use of Emflaza, we rely on non-patent market exclusivity periods under the Orphan Drug Act and the Hatch-Waxman Act to commercialize Emflaza in the United States.

Market and data exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications for competing products. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety. During the exclusivity period, the FDA generally may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that references the previously approved drug. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

The FDCA also provides a shorter three-year period of market exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA or 505(b)(2) NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application. Three-year exclusivity may be granted for example, for new indications, dosages, strengths or dosage forms of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent market exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of market protection to the term of any existing Orange Book- listed patents or regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent exclusivity periods described above. This six-month exclusivity may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study or studies in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study or studies within a specified timeframe prior to the expiration of the underlying patent or market exclusivity period to be extended. We have received such a request from the FDA and we intend to conduct such studies pending finalization of discussions with the FDA on the nature and objective of the required studies.

Regulation outside the United States

In order to market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. And, even if regulatory approval is granted, it may be withdrawn or limited under certain circumstances or post-approval requirements may be imposed by the applicable regulatory authority.

Regulation in the European Union

We have obtained an orphan medicinal product designation from the European Commission, following an evaluation by the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, Becker muscular dystrophy and aniridia - but have only received conditional marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. The European Commission can grant orphan medicinal product designation to products for which the sponsor can establish that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 people in the European Union, or (2) a life threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would generate a sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. In addition, the sponsor must establish that there is no other satisfactory method approved in the European Union of diagnosing, preventing or treating the condition, or if such a method exists, the proposed orphan drug will be of significant benefit to patients. Orphan drug designation is not a marketing authorization. It is a designation that provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance, and the possibility to apply for a centralized EU marketing authorization, as well as 10 years of EU market exclusivity following a marketing authorization. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA, nor the European Commission nor any EU member states can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product.” A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the orphan designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. In addition, a competing similar medicinal product may in limited circumstances be authorized prior to the expiration of the market exclusivity period, including if it is shown to be safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to our product. Our product and product candidates can lose orphan designation, and the related benefits, prior to us obtaining a marketing authorization if it is demonstrated that the orphan designation criteria are no longer met.

Overview of application process. To obtain regulatory approval of a drug under the European Union’s regulatory systems and authorization procedures, an applicant may submit marketing authorization applications under a centralized, decentralized, or national procedure. The centralized procedure is compulsory for certain medicinal products, including orphan medicinal products, like Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, and medicinal products produced by certain biotechnological processes, and optional for certain other innovative products. The centralized procedure enables applicants to obtain a marketing authorization that is valid in all EU member states based on a single application. Under the centralized procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, is required to adopt an opinion on a valid application within 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions. More specifically, on day 120 of the procedure, once the CHMP has received the preliminary assessment reports and opinions from the rapporteur and co-rapporteur, it prepares a list of potential outstanding issues, referred to as “other concerns” or “major objections”. These are sent to the applicant together with CHMP’s recommendation. The CHMP can make one of two recommendations: (1) the marketing authorization could be granted provided that satisfactory answers are given to the “other

concerns” and/or “major objections” identified and that all conditions outlined in the list of outstanding issues are implemented and complied with; or (2) the product is not approvable since there are “major objections”.

Applicants have three months from the date of receiving the potential outstanding issues to respond to the CHMP, and can request a three-month extension if necessary. The granting of a marketing authorization will depend on the recommendations and potential major objections identified by the CHMP as well as the ability of the applicant to adequately respond to these findings. An accelerated assessment can be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. In this circumstance, the EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days. After the adoption of the CHMP opinion, a decision on the marketing authorization application must be adopted by the European Commission, after consulting the European Union member states, which in total can take more than 60 days.

An applicant for a marketing authorization application may request a re-examination in the event of a negative opinion, in connection with which CHMP appoints new rapporteurs. Within 60 days of receipt of the negative opinion, the applicant must submit a document explaining the basis for its request for re-examination. The CHMP has 60 days to consider the applicant’s request for re-examination. The applicant may request an oral explanation before the CHMP, which is routinely granted, following which CHMP will adopt a final opinion. The final opinion, whether positive or negative, is published by the CHMP shortly following the CHMP meeting at which the oral explanation takes place.

Conditional marketing authorizations. In specific circumstances, as with Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, EU legislation enables applicants to obtain a marketing authorization on a conditional basis prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for products designated as orphan medicinal products, if (1) the benefit-risk balance of the product is positive, (2) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (3) the product fulfills unmet medical needs, and (4) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the benefit-risk balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization. The granting of a conditional marketing authorization will depend on the applicant’s ability to fulfill the conditions imposed within the agreed upon deadline.

For important information about matters that may adversely affect our ability to renew our conditional marketing authorization for Translarna, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors-Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of our Product and our Product Candidates” and “Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of our Product and our Product Candidates.”

Variations to conditional marketing authorizations. After the granting of a conditional marketing authorization, the marketing authorization holder may submit an application to vary the conditional marketing authorization under a variation procedure. In the case of the introduction of an additional therapeutic indication, the timeframe for the variation procedure for the initial assessment of the dossier is generally 90 days (plus up to 20 days for validation).

However, in the framework of a variation application assessment procedure, the EMA may send one or more requests for supplementary information to the marketing authorization holder, requiring that additional information be provided by the marketing authorization holder to support its variation application. Such supplementary requests will be sent together with a timetable stating the date by when the marketing authorization holder must submit the requested data and, where appropriate, the extended evaluation period to be applied to such variation procedure. The 90 day variation procedure may be suspended for up to three months for the marketing authorization holder to submit its responses to such supplementary requests. The marketing authorization holder will be notified of the outcome of the CHMP’s assessment of the variation procedure within 15 days from the adoption of the CHMP opinion. If unfavorable, the CHMP opinion may be subject to a re-examination procedure upon the marketing authorization holder’s request. This may imply an additional minimum two month procedure. If the CHMP opinion is favorable, the European Commission will usually vary the marketing authorization to introduce the additional therapeutic indication within approximately two months from the receipt of the final CHMP opinion.

Additional requirements and considerations. Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, applicants have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted (1) a product-specific waiver, (2) a class waiver, or (3) a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. In the case of orphan medicinal products, completion of an approved PIP can result in an extension of the aforementioned market exclusivity period from ten to twelve years.

In the European Union, independently generated data submitted as part of a full marketing authorization application dossier are protected by regulatory data protection (‘data exclusivity’) for a period of eight years from the granting of a marketing authorization for a ‘reference product’. This means that for a period of eight years, competent authorities may not accept marketing authorization applications that rely on the independently generated data in the marketing authorization dossier of the reference product. Generic medicinal products that rely on the independently generated data of the reference product may not be placed on the market for 10 years from the granting of the initial marketing authorization for the reference medicinal product. These periods of data exclusivity and market exclusivity do not prevent other companies from obtaining a marketing authorization based on their own independently generated data.

If a marketing authorization is granted in the EEA for a medicinal product, such as the marketing authorization granted for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD by the European Commission, the marketing authorization holder is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal products that are in addition to the other conditions of the marketing authorization described above. The marketing authorization holder must, for example, comply with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post- authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed. Other requirements relate to, for example, the manufacturing of products and active pharmaceutical ingredients in accordance with good manufacturing practice standards. Competent authorities of EU member states may conduct inspections to verify compliance with applicable requirements, and the marketing authorization holder will have to continue to expend time, money and effort to remain compliant. Non-compliance with EU requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, can also result in significant financial penalties in the EU Similarly, failure to comply with the EU’s requirements regarding the protection of individual personal data can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions. Individual EU member states may also impose various sanctions and penalties in case we do not comply with locally applicable requirements.

Off-label promotion of medicinal products is prohibited in the European Union. The applicable laws at European Union level and in the individual European Union member states also prohibit the direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicinal products. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the European Union could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict our promotional activities with health care professionals. In addition, legislation adopted at the European Union level and by individual European Union member states require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, as approved by the competent authorities. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. Promotion of indications not covered by the SmPC is specifically prohibited.

The EMA is responsible for coordinating inspections to verify compliance with the principles of good clinical practice, or GCP, good manufacturing practice, or GMP, good laboratory practice, or GLP, and good pharmacovigilance practice, or GVP. These inspections are also intended to verify compliance with other aspects of the supervision of authorized medicinal products in use in the European Union. The EMA coordinates any inspection requested by the CHMP in connection with the assessment of marketing authorization applications or matters referred to these committees. Inspections may be routine or triggered by issues arising during the assessment of the dossier or by other information, such as previous inspection experience. Inspections usually are requested during the initial review of a marketing authorization application, but could arise post-authorization.

Inspectors are drawn from member states of the European Union and the European Economic Area. Following an inspection, the inspectors provide a written inspection report to the inspected site or applicant and provide an opportunity for response. Some inspection reports require follow-up and may result in additional adverse consequences due to critical or major findings. The inspectors and the CHMP will comment on any response from an inspected site or applicant and may monitor future compliance with any proposed corrective action plan.

In the GCP area, inspectors grade their findings according to the following scale:

•

Critical: Conditions, practices or processes that adversely affect the rights, safety or well-being of the subjects or the quality and integrity of data. Observations classified as critical may include a pattern of deviations classified as major.

•

Major: Conditions, practices or processes that might adversely affect the rights, safety or well-being of the subjects and/or the quality and integrity of data. Observations classified as major may include a pattern of deviations or numerous minor observations.

•

Minor: Conditions, practices or processes that would not be expected to adversely affect the rights, safety or wellbeing of the subjects or the quality and integrity of data. Minor observations indicate the need for improvement of conditions, practices and processes.

Comments: Suggestions on how to improve quality or reduce the potential for a deviation to occur in the future.

Possible consequences of critical and major findings include rejection of clinical trial data, causing significant delays in obtaining final marketing authorization, or other direct action by national regulatory authorities.

Early access programs

Many jurisdictions allow the supply of unauthorized medicinal products in the context of strictly regulated and exceptional EAP programs, and some countries may provide reimbursement for drugs provided in the context of such programs. In the European Union, the legal basis for EAP programs, also referred to as named-patient and compassionate use programs, is set out in the EU legislation regulating the authorization, manufacture, distribution and marketing of medicinal products. Detailed regulatory requirements applicable to EAP programs have been adopted and implemented by EU member states in their national laws. The promotion, advertising and marketing of unauthorized medicinal products is generally prohibited, and authorization for EAP programs must generally be obtained from national competent authorities, which might not grant such authorization. Obtaining authorization for an EAP program in one country does not ensure that authorization will be obtained in another country. U.S. law permits “expanded access” (also known as compassionate use and treatment use) for certain patients with serious diseases who have no comparable alternative treatment options. To provide expanded access, sponsors must submit detailed regulatory information to the FDA. FDA authorization depends on several different factors, including whether expanded access will interfere with related clinical trials or drug development. Sponsors may not promote products as safe or effective for expanded-access uses.

Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of pharmaceuticals have been a focus of this effort. Foreign governments, the U.S. government, and state legislatures have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs.

In some countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing and reimbursement negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. In some countries, governments can set conditions that must be satisfied for prices to be set at a certain value. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing and reimbursement negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states, and parallel distribution (arbitrage between low-priced and high- priced member states), can further reduce prices. In some countries we may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product or product candidate to other available therapies in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval.

Coverage policies, third-party reimbursement rates and drug pricing regulation may change at any time. For example in the United States, healthcare reform measures under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, referred to together as the Affordable Care Act, contain provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products. However, the Trump Administration and Congress already attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and may do so again, which may contribute to the uncertainty of the ongoing implementation and impact of the Affordable Care Act and also underscores the potential for additional reform going forward. Certain provisions of enacted or proposed legislative changes may negatively impact coverage and reimbursement of healthcare items and services. We cannot assure that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as amended in the future, will not adversely affect our business and financial results and we cannot predict how future federal or state legislative or administrative changes relating to healthcare reform will affect our business.

Any regulatory approval of a product is limited to specific diseases and indications for which such product has been deemed safe and effective by the FDA. Coverage by federal healthcare programs, however, may be more limited than the indications for which a drug is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ coverage of the same products. Sales of any products for which we may receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors, including government healthcare programs (such as, in the United States, Medicare and Medicaid), private health insurers and other organizations. Obtaining reimbursement for orphan drugs may be particularly difficult because of the significant research and development challenges and costs and resulting pricing considerations typically associated with drugs developed to treat conditions that affect a small population of patients. In addition, third-party payors are likely to impose strict requirements for reimbursement in connection with drugs that

are perceived as having high costs. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors.

The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third- party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our product or product candidates or conduct direct head-to-head studies to demonstrate clinical superiority and cost-effectiveness. Our products and product candidates may not be considered clinically superior and cost-effective to competitor products.

The marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and other third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement.

For important information regarding certain pricing and reimbursement matters see “Item 1. Business-Market Access Considerations” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors,” including the risk factor titled “Commercialization of Translarna has been in, and is expected to continue to take place in, countries that tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues. Failure to obtain and maintain acceptable pricing and reimbursement terms for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA and other countries where Translarna is available would delay or prevent us from marketing our product in such regions, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.”

Freedom of Information Requests and Affirmative Disclosures

We are also subject, in the U.S. and many other countries, to various regulatory schemes that require disclosure of clinical trial data or allow access to our data via freedom of information requests. We have been and may, from time to time, be notified by regulators, such as the EMA or the competent authorities of EU member states that they have received a freedom of information request for documents that they hold relating to our company, including information related to our product or our product candidates. For example, in 2015, we were notified by the EMA that it had received from another pharmaceutical company a request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 seeking access to aspects of our marketing authorization application for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. Following the decision of the EMA to release such documentation with only minimal redactions we initiated litigation before the General Court of the European Union to prevent disclosure of this information. In the first quarter of 2018, the Court ruled in favor of the EMA, allowing the EMA to release the documentation. We have appealed the General Court’s decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union and the EMA has confirmed that it will not release the documents while the matter is still subject to the appeal process. However, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in the appeal and we may not ultimately succeed in preventing disclosure of the data in our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. In addition, under policies recently adopted in the EU, clinical trial data submitted to the EMA in MAAs that were traditionally regarded as confidential commercial information is now subject to automatic public disclosure. Subject to our limited ability to review and redact a narrow sub-set of confidential commercial information, these new EU policies will result in the EMA’s public disclosure of certain of our clinical study reports, clinical trial data summaries and clinical overviews for recently completed and future MAA submissions. The move toward public disclosure of development data could adversely affect our business in many ways, including, for example, resulting in the disclosure of our confidential methodologies for development of our products, preventing us from obtaining intellectual property right protection for innovations, requiring us to allocate significant resources to prevent other companies from violating our intellectual property rights, adding even more complexity to processing health data from clinical trials consistent with applicable data privacy regulations, and enabling competitors to use our data to gain approvals for their own products.

Fraud and Abuse Laws

Any present or future arrangements or interactions with third-party payors, healthcare providers and professionals, patients and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may restrict certain marketing and contracting practices. These laws include, and are not limited to, anti-kickback and false claims statutes.

Both the federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, and the UK Bribery Act of 2010, or Bribery Act are broad in scope and will require companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the company and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. The FCPA prohibits the offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-U.S. government official in order to improperly influence any act or decision, secure any other improper advantage, or obtain or retain business. Under the UK Bribery Act, companies which carry on a business or part of a business in the United Kingdom may be held liable for bribes given, offered or promised to any person, including non-UK government officials and private persons, by employees and persons associated with the company in order to obtain or retain business or a business advantage for the

company. Similar statutes have been adopted, or may be adopted in the future, by other countries in which we operate and with which we are or may be required to comply.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, or order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. This statute imposes criminal penalties and has been broadly interpreted to apply to manufacturer arrangements with prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers, among others. Although a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors exist to protect certain common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors for this statute are narrow, and practices that involve compensation intended to induce prescriptions, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. Our practices may not always meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection. A person or entity need not have knowledge of the statutes or the specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal anti-kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act. Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs; furthermore, in several states, these statutes and regulations apply regardless of the payor. Sanctions under these federal and state laws may include civil monetary penalties, exclusion of a manufacturer’s product from reimbursement under government programs, debarment, criminal fines, and imprisonment. Several other countries, including the United Kingdom, have enacted similar anti-kickback, fraud and abuse laws and regulations.

The federal False Claims Act, which permits civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, imposes civil liability and penalties on individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent, as well as for making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The federal government continues to use the False Claims Act, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in investigations against pharmaceutical and health care companies. These investigations have involved, for example, allegations of providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the free product, as well as the promotion of products for unapproved uses. Potential liability under the federal False Claims Act includes treble damages and significant per claim penalties, currently set at $10,957 to $21,916 (as adjusted for inflation) per false claim. The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal False Claims Act, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs.

The Affordable Care Act included a provision requiring certain providers and suppliers of items and services to Federal Health Care Programs to report and return overpayments within sixty days after they are “identified” (the “Overpayment Statute”). In 2014 and 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, released regulatory guidance (in the form of a final rule) to Medicare providers, suppliers and managed care and prescription drug plans regarding how to comply with the Overpayment Statute. Although these Medicare providers, suppliers and plans have faced federal False Claims Act liability since 2010 for failures to comply with the Overpayment Statute, these final rules interpreting the Overpayment Statute provide guidance regarding how to comply with applicable obligations, and guidance to government regulators and enforcement authorities regarding monitoring and prosecuting suspected violations. These final rules are not directly applicable to manufacturers, but may impact their customers and potential customers who are Medicare providers, suppliers, and plans.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act, and its implementing regulations, require manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report to CMS information related to payments and other transfers of value made to covered recipients, such as physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as physician ownership and investment interests. Payments made to physicians and certain research institutions for clinical trials are included within the ambit of this law. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are required annually to report and disclose payments and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members during the preceding calendar year. Such information is made publicly available by CMS in a searchable format, with data collected in each calendar year published the following June. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties, with increased penalties for “knowing failures,” for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests not reported in an annual submission. If not preempted by this federal law, several states currently require pharmaceutical companies to report expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of pharmaceutical products and to report gifts and payments to healthcare professionals in those states. Depending on the state, legislation may prohibit various other marketing related activities, or require the posting of information relating to clinical studies and their outcomes. In addition, certain states, such as California, Nevada, Connecticut and Massachusetts, require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs or marketing codes and several other states are considering similar proposals. Manufacturers that fail to comply with these state laws can face civil penalties.

Statutory requirements to disclose publicly payments made to healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations have also been enacted in certain European Union member states. In addition, self-regulatory bodies of the pharmaceuticals industry, such as the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, or EFPIA, have published codes of conduct to which its members have agreed to abide to, that require the public disclosure of payments made to healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, imposes criminal liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program and for knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

HIPAA, HITECH, and similar state laws, also impose obligations on certain entities with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA's privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney's fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Civil and criminal penalties include up to $50,000 per violation plus a criminal fine of up to $250,000 and ten years in prison.

Any continuing efforts by the Trump Administration and the U.S. Congress to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the Affordable Care Act, could have an impact on fraud and abuse provisions and other requirements, including the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, that were authorized and enacted under the Affordable Care Act.

The foregoing discussion should be read in conjunction with the information appearing under “Item 1A. Risk Factors-Our relationships with customers, healthcare providers and professionals, patients, patient organizations, and third-party payors are or will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, transparency and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.” which contains important information regarding some of the risks to our business arising as a result fraud and abuse laws.

Employees

As of December 31, 2017, we had 373 employees, of whom 366 were employed on a full-time basis, and 34 full-time consultants and contractors. None of our U.S. based employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements, although certain international employees are covered by collective labor agreements established under local law. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on March 31, 1998, under the name PTC Therapeutics, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 100 Corporate Court, South Plainfield, New Jersey 07080. Our telephone number is (908) 222-7000. We maintain a website at www.ptcbio.com.

Additional Information

We make available, free of charge on our website, www.ptcbio.com, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file those reports with, or furnish them to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. Such reports, proxy statements and other information may be obtained through the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov) or by visiting the Public Reference Room of the SEC at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20549 or calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

The following risk factors and other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently

known to us or that we presently deem less significant may also impair our business operations. Please see page 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of some of the forward-looking statements that are qualified by these risk factors. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of our Products and our Product Candidates

We depend heavily on the success of Translarna, which we are developing for nmDMD and other indications, and Emflaza, for DMD. If we are unable to execute our commercial strategy for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA or for Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States, fail to receive regulatory approval for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States and other territories, fail to obtain renewal of, or satisfy the conditions of our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA, or fail to maintain our marketing authorization or market exclusivity for Emflaza in the United States, or if we experience significant delays in accomplishing such goals, our business will be materially harmed.

We have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the development of Translarna for nmDMD and in the acquisition of Emflaza for DMD. Our ability to generate product revenues will depend heavily on the successful development and commercialization of Translarna and our successful integration of Emflaza into our business and commercialization of Emflaza for DMD in the United States. Prior to our commercialization of Emflaza in the United States, we had no history of commercializing pharmaceuticals in the United States.

As we presently have no patent rights to protect the approved use of Emflaza, we rely on the concurrently running market exclusivity periods currently available to us under the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Orphan Drug Act to commercialize Emflaza for DMD in the United States. Additionally, because the FDA has requested that we conduct a pediatric study of Emflaza, we may also rely on an additional six-month term of pediatric exclusivity upon completion of an agreed-upon study. Further, we are obligated to complete certain FDA post-marketing requirements in connection with our marketing authorization of Emflaza. Failure to maintain these market exclusivity periods, obtain the pediatric exclusivity period, complete the FDA post-marketing requirements, maintain our marketing authorization for Emflaza in the United States, or timely execute our commercialization plans for Emflaza, would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

While we have obtained marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA, such authorization is subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following the annual EMA reassessment as well as the specific obligation to conduct and submit the results of Study 041. For a review of recent developments that have had, and may continue to have, a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, please review the risk factor titled, “ACT DMD did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint, and there is substantial risk that regulators will not agree with our interpretation of the results of ACT DMD and the totality of clinical data from our trials in Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial performance and results of operations.”

We are currently pursuing further clinical development efforts for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, nonsense mutation aniridia, and nonsense mutation CDKL5/Dravet syndrome. Each genetic disorder has unique genetic and pathophysiological characteristics and we believe that regulators, including the FDA and the EMA, will evaluate the effectiveness of Translarna for any given indication based on the merits of the clinical efficacy evidence available for such indication. However, because we are developing Translarna for the treatment of multiple indications associated with genetic disorders that arise as a result of a nonsense mutation, there is a risk that negative results in a clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of Translarna for one indication, such as the negative results of our ACT CF trial for nmCF which we announced in 2017, could adversely affect the perception of the efficacy of Translarna in a different indication. There can be no assurance that regulators, including the FDA and the EMA, will not consider such results when making determinations with respect to our ongoing or future regulatory submissions for marketing authorization of Translarna for any indication, including in connection with the FDA’s Complete Response Letter to our NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and the EMA’s annual reassessment of our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, which could have an adverse effect on the outcome of the applicable regulatory review. We have submitted the safety results of ACT CF to regulators with any applicable safety updates and submissions, including the EMA. While the safety profile of Translarna in the ACT CF study was consistent with previous studies and no new safety signals were identified, there can be no assurance that the EMA or other regulators will agree with our interpretation of the safety data from the trial.

If we do not successfully renew and maintain our marketing authorization and commercialize Translarna in the EEA, or receive regulatory approval in the United States for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and subsequently successfully commercialize Translarna in the United States, our ability to generate additional revenue will be jeopardized and, consequently, our business will be materially harmed. Likewise, if we do not successfully commercialize or maintain our marketing

the ability of our third-party manufacturers to successfully produce commercial and clinical supply of drug on a timely basis sufficient to meet the needs of our commercial and clinical activities;

•

successful identification of eligible patients;

•

acceptance of the drug as a treatment for the approved indication by patients, the medical community and third-party payors;

•

effectively competing with other therapies;

•

a continued acceptable safety profile of the drug;

•

the costs, timing and outcome of post-marketing studies and trials for Emflaza and Translarna, including, with respect to Translarna, Study 041;

•

obtaining and maintaining patent and trade secret protection and regulatory exclusivity, including with respect to Emflaza, whether we are able to maintain market exclusivity periods under the Hatch-Waxman Act and Orphan Drug Act or obtain an additional six-month period of pediatric exclusivity;

•

whether, with respect to Translarna, we are able to continue to satisfy our obligations under, and maintain, the marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, including whether the EMA determines on an annual basis that the benefit-risk balance of Translarna supports renewal of our marketing authorization in the EEA, on the current approved label;

•

whether, and within what timeframe, we are able to advance Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States, pursuant to the formal dispute resolution request process with the FDA or otherwise, and including, whether we will be required to perform additional clinical trials, non-clinical studies or CMC assessments or analyses at significant cost which, if successful, may enable FDA review of an NDA submission by us and, ultimately, may support approval of Translarna for nmDMD in the United States;

our ability to obtain additional and maintain existing reimbursed named patient and cohort EAP programs for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD on adequate terms;

•

our ability to successfully prepare and advance regulatory submissions for marketing authorizations for Translarna in additional territories and for additional or expanded indications and whether and in what timeframe we may obtain such authorizations;

•

the ability and willingness of patients and healthcare professionals to access Translarna through alternative means if pricing and reimbursement negotiations in the applicable territory do not have a positive outcome; and

•

protecting our rights in our intellectual property portfolio.

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to continue to commercialize Translarna or Emflaza, either of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

ACT DMD did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint, and there is substantial risk that regulators will not agree with our interpretation of the results of ACT DMD and the totality of clinical data from our trials in Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial performance and results of operations.

In October 2015, we announced that the primary efficacy endpoint in the ITT population did not achieve statistical significance in ACT DMD. We submitted our analyses of the ACT DMD data and meta-analyses of the combined ACT DMD and Phase 2b subgroup data to the EMA to support continuation of our marketing authorization in the EEA, which is subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization. The EMA and European Commission did not approve our request for full marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and, instead, approved the annual renewal of our conditional marketing authorization with the specific obligation to confirm the efficacy and safety of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients age 5 years or older via Study 041.

Enrolling, conducting and reporting a clinical trial is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we expect that we will incur material costs related to the implementation and conduct of Study 041. We expect that conducting a placebo-controlled trial in nmDMD of this size will be challenging and it is probable that we will enroll patients in territories where Translarna has already become available on a reimbursed basis, which could negatively impact growth in our product sales. We may enroll patients in countries with a different standard of care for nmDMD patients or at clinical trial sites that are inexperienced with clinical trials in general, or specifically with nmDMD trials. In addition, we may experience unknown complications with Study 041 and may not achieve the pre-specified endpoint with statistical significance, which would have a material adverse effect on our ability to maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA.

There is substantial risk that other regulators in regions where we have not yet sought or are currently seeking marketing authorization will not agree with our interpretation of the results of ACT DMD and the totality of clinical data from our trials in Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, which would have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from the sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in those applicable territories. In addition, we may not be able to maintain or obtain marketing authorizations in areas where such authorizations are contingent upon decisions of the EMA with respect to our marketing authorization in the EEA.

The marketing authorization granted by the European Commission for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD is limited to ambulatory patients aged five years and older located in the EEA, which significantly limits an already small treatable patient population, which reduces our commercial opportunity and is also subject to annual reassessment of the benefit-risk balance by the EMA as well as the specific obligation to conduct Study 041, and may be varied, suspended or withdrawn by the European Commission if we fail to satisfy those requirements.

We have obtained orphan drug designations from the EMA and from the FDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD because the number of patients who could benefit from treatment with Translarna is small. The marketing label approved by the European Commission further limits the currently treatable patient population to ambulatory nmDMD patients aged five years and older who have been identified through genetic testing as having a nonsense mutation in the dystrophin gene. Prevalence estimates for rare diseases are uncertain due to the uncertainties associated with the methodologies used to derive estimates, such as epidemiology assumptions. It can take many years of experience in rare disease market places before prevalence becomes well characterized. We are launching the first therapy specifically aimed at nmDMD patients. Our estimates of both the number of people who have DMD caused by a nonsense mutation, as well as the subset of people with nmDMD who are ambulatory and at least five years old (and, therefore, satisfy the conditions for treatment under our current product label in the EEA), are based on our beliefs and estimates derived from a variety of sources and may prove to be either incorrect or subject to additional refinement or characterization on a country specific basis over the coming years. Prevalence estimates vary given some degree of variation in the incidence of live male births, the incidence of DMD, the incidence of nonsense mutations and other factors. Information concerning the eligible patient population is generally limited to certain geographies and may not employ definitive measures capable of establishing with precision the actual number of nmDMD patients in such geography. If the market opportunities for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD are smaller than we believe they are, our business and anticipated revenues will be negatively impacted. Although we intend to seek to expand the approved product label of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the future, the timing of, and our ability to generate, the necessary data or results required to obtain expanded regulatory approval is currently uncertain. Given the small number of patients who have nmDMD, and the smaller number of patients who meet the criteria for treatment under our current marketing authorization, our commercial opportunity is limited. It is critical to the commercial success of Translarna for nmDMD that we successfully identify and treat these patients.

In order to continue to generate revenue from Translarna, we must maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients aged five years and older and we also may need to receive

marketing authorizations in other territories. The marketing authorization in the EEA is subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization, which we refer to as the annual EMA reassessment, as well as the specific obligation to complete and report the results of Study 041 to the EMA. We expect that as part of the annual EMA assessment, the EMA will consider the ongoing status of Study 041. The marketing authorization was last renewed in June 2017 and is effective, unless extended, through August 5, 2018. Enrolling Study 041 may further reduce the number of patients available for reimbursed treatment.

If the EMA determines in any annual renewal cycle that the balance of benefits and risks of using Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD has changed materially or that we have not or are unable to comply with any conditions that have been or may be placed on the marketing authorization, the European Commission could, at the EMA’s recommendation, vary, suspend, withdraw or refuse to renew the marketing authorization for Translarna or require the imposition of other conditions or restrictions. As such, there is ongoing risk to our ability to maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA. If we are unable to renew our marketing authorization in the EEA during any annual renewal cycle, or if our product label is materially restricted, we would lose all, or a significant portion of, our ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna, whether pursuant to a commercial or an EAP program, and in all territories, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. See “Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of our Products and our Product Candidates” below for further detail regarding conditional marketing authorizations in the EEA.

If there are delays in obtaining regulatory approval in the United States, we will not be able to commercialize Translarna for nmDMD in that territory and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired. In the event that the FDA requires us to conduct a new clinical trial in nmDMD which, if successful, may enable FDA review of an NDA submission by us, we would expect to incur significant costs, which may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In October 2015, we announced that the primary efficacy endpoint in the ITT population did not achieve statistical significance in ACT DMD. On the basis of our position that the totality of clinical data from ACT DMD and our prior Phase 2b trial support the clinical benefit of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, we submitted our analyses of the ACT DMD data and meta-analysis of the combined ACT DMD and Phase 2b subgroup data to the FDA, as part of our NDA.

On February 22, 2016, we received a Refuse to File letter from the FDA stating that, in the view of the FDA, both our Phase 2b and Phase 3 ACT DMD trials were negative and do not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness. Additionally, the FDA stated that we had proposed a post-hoc adjustment of ACT DMD that eliminates data from a majority of enrolled patients. In addition, the FDA noted that our NDA does not contain adequate information regarding the abuse potential of Translarna. In October 2016, the FDA denied our first appeal of the Refuse to File letter. In the first quarter of 2017, we filed our Translarna NDA for nmDMD with the FDA via the “file over protest” process that allows a company to have its NDA filed and reviewed when there is a disagreement with regulators over the acceptability of the NDA submission. In October 2017, the Office of Drug Evaluation I of the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter for the NDA, stating that it was unable to approve the application in its current form. In response, we filed a formal dispute resolution request with the Office of New Drugs of the FDA. In February 2018, the Office of New Drugs of the FDA denied our appeal of the Complete Response Letter. In its response, the Office of New Drugs recommended a possible path forward for the ataluren NDA submission based on the accelerated approval pathway. This would involve a re-submission of an NDA containing the current data on effectiveness of ataluren with new data to be generated on dystrophin production in nmDMD patients’ muscles. We intend to follow the FDA’s recommendation and will collect such dystrophin data using newer technologies via procedures and methods that will be mutually agreeable to us and the FDA. Additionally, should a re-submission of an NDA receive accelerated approval, the Office of New Drugs stated that Study 041, which is currently enrolling, could serve as the confirmatory post-approval trial required in connection with the accelerated approval framework.

There is substantial risk that we will not be able to agree with the FDA on the procedures or methods to be used to collect dystrophin data or that any such studies will not provide the necessary data to support a marketing approval for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. Even if we are successful in resolving some or all of the matters raised by the FDA in its denial of our appeal of the Complete Response Letter, there is significant risk that we will be unable to obtain FDA approval of Translarna for nmDMD, on a timely basis or at all, and we may be required to perform additional clinical trials, non-clinical studies or CMC assessments or analyses at significant cost. Even if we are able to enroll and fund any such additional trials or studies or complete such assessments or analyses, there is substantial risk that the results would not ultimately support the approval of a re-submission of an NDA in the United States for Translarna for nmDMD. In addition, any such requirement for additional trials would most likely result in our inability to sell Translarna in the United States for a significant period of time, which would have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from the sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. Due to these uncertainties, we are unable to estimate the timing or potential for a launch of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States.

The FDA has repeatedly disagreed with our interpretation of the study results for Translarna. In 2010, we filed a NDA for ataluren based on our Phase2b clinical data, which the FDA refused to file. We filed a formal dispute resolution request

concerning this decision in 2011 and, in 2012, the FDA reaffirmed its previous decision to refuse to file the 2010 NDA. In its 2016 Refuse to File letter and in its 2017 Complete Response Letter and its denial of our appeal to the Complete Response Letter, the FDA referenced its prior refusal to file relative to the Phase 2b data and our early discussions with the FDA, reiterating the views previously expressed.

We may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of our acquisition of all rights to Emflaza, those benefits may take longer to realize than expected, and we may encounter significant integration difficulties.

On April 20, 2017, we completed the acquisition of all rights to Emflaza pursuant to an asset purchase agreement, dated March 15, 2017 and amended on April 20, 2017, or the Asset Purchase Agreement, by and between us and Marathon Pharmaceuticals, LLC (now known as Complete Pharma Holdings, LLC), or Marathon.

Our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of our acquisition of Emflaza will depend, to a large extent, on our ability to continue to integrate Emflaza into our business and realize anticipated growth opportunities and synergies. We will be required to devote significant management attention and resources to continue integrating this product into our business. The process may be disruptive to our business and the expected benefits may not be achieved within the anticipated time frame, or at all. The failure to meet the challenges involved and to realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition could cause an interruption of, or a loss of momentum in, our commercialization efforts and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, there may be delays in the processing and adjudication of prescriptions, which can require a significant period of time, in some cases several months, and may be subject to additional third-party payor requirements, including prior authorization and requirements to try other therapies first, which would delay our ability to obtain payment for prescriptions for Emflaza. Further, while we estimate that there are approximately 10,000 DMD patients in the United States who are aged five years or older, these estimates may prove to be incorrect. If the market opportunity for Emflaza is smaller than we believe it is, our business and anticipated revenues will be negatively impacted. There are no guarantees that Emflaza will be commercially successful and we may never achieve significant revenue from sales of the drug.

In addition to the factors above relating to the commercial launch of Emflaza in the United States, our commercialization efforts rely on non-patent market exclusivity periods under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, or the Orphan Drug Act, and the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act. There are limited circumstances under each of the Orphan Drug Act and the Hatch-Waxman Act that could result in our loss of marketing exclusivity, which could allow a competitor to enter the market. Failure to maintain either market exclusivity period would have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize Emflaza.

Our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition is expected to entail numerous additional material potential difficulties, including, among others:

•

challenges related to public and market perception of Emflaza and/or our acquisition of the product;

•

increased scrutiny from third parties, including regulators, legislative bodies and enforcement agencies, with respect to product pricing and commercialization matters;

•

changes in laws or regulations that adversely impact the anticipated benefits of the acquisition;

•

challenges related to the perception by patients, the medical community and third-party payors of Emflaza for the treatment of DMD;

•

challenges related to the ability of patients to obtain and maintain sufficient coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, including Medicare and Medicaid and other government and private payers for Emflaza;

Many of these factors are outside of our control, and any one of them could result in increased costs, decreased expected revenues and further diversion of management time and energy, which could materially impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, we now possess not only the rights to Emflaza, but also certain corresponding liabilities and obligations, including the contractual liabilities and regulatory obligations that were assumed by us upon closing of the transaction, including certain royalty payment obligations and FDA post-marketing requirements. The post-marketing requirements we are obligated to complete in connection with our marketing authorization granted by the FDA in the United States are expected to result in additional investment in Emflaza by us, and failure to satisfy any such requirements could delay our realization of, or prevent us from ever realizing, the anticipated benefits from the acquisition.

In addition, upfront consideration for the acquisition from Marathon was comprised of $75 million in cash, funded through cash on hand, and 6,683,598 shares of our common stock. Marathon is also entitled to receive contingent payments from us based on annual net sales of Emflaza beginning in 2018 and has the opportunity to receive a single $50 million sales-based milestone. The issuance of our common stock was dilutive to our existing stockholders and because we have limited financial resources, by investing in this acquisition, we may forgo or delay pursuit of other opportunities that may have proven to have greater commercial potential.

Further, it is possible that undisclosed, contingent, or other liabilities or problems may arise in the future of which we were previously unaware. These undisclosed liabilities could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

All of these factors could decrease or delay the expected accretive effect of the transaction and negatively impact our stock price. As a result, it cannot be assured that the acquisition will result in the full realization of the benefits anticipated from the transaction within the anticipated time frames or at all.

If clinical trials of Translarna or our product candidates fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the EMA, the FDA or other regulators, or do not otherwise produce favorable results, we may experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of Translarna or any other product candidate.

In connection with seeking marketing authorization from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing authorization of their products.

The primary efficacy endpoint in the intent to treat, or ITT, population did not achieve statistical significance in the Phase 2b (completed in 2009) or Phase 3 ACT DMD (completed in 2015) clinical trials of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. For a review of recent developments that have had, and may continue to have, a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, please review the risk factor titled, “ACT DMD did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint, and there is substantial risk that regulators will not agree with our interpretation of the results of ACT DMD and the totality of clinical data from our trials in Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial performance and results of operations.”

If the FDA, the EMA and other regulators do not agree with our interpretation of the results of the clinical data from our trials, and, when and if completed, Study 041 and related analyses, or otherwise do not view the results of these trials as favorable; if we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of Translarna or any other product candidate that we develop beyond those that we contemplate; if we are unable to successfully complete our clinical trials or other testing; if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive; or if there are safety concerns, we may, among other things:

•

be unable to successfully maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, which is subject to annual review and renewal following reassessment of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization by the EMA;

be delayed in obtaining additional marketing authorizations, or not obtain additional marketing authorizations at all, for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD;

•

be delayed in obtaining marketing authorizations, or not obtain marketing authorizations at all, for Translarna for other indications, or for our other product candidates;

•

obtain approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired;

•

obtain approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings, including boxed warnings;

•

be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements or restrictions;

•

have the product removed from markets after obtaining applicable marketing authorizations; or

•

not be permitted to sell Translarna under some or any reimbursed EAP programs.

In addition, on March 2, 2017, we announced that the primary and secondary endpoints were not achieved in ACT CF. As a result, we discontinued our clinical development of Translarna for nmCF. We have withdrawn our type II variation submission with the EMA, which sought approval of Translarna for the treatment of nmCF in the EEA, and do not expect to pursue other marketing authorizations for this indication.

If we or our collaborators experience any of a number of possible unforeseen events in connection with clinical trials related to Translarna or our product candidates, including Study 041 and those under our collaboration with Roche and the SMA Foundation, maintenance of our existing marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA and any additional potential marketing authorization or commercialization of Translarna or our product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

We or our collaborators may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing authorization or commercialize Translarna or our product candidates, including:

•

clinical trials of Translarna or our product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or abandon product development programs;

•

the number of patients required for clinical trials of our product and product candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate or participants may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate;

•

we may be unable to enroll a sufficient number of patients in our clinical trials to ensure adequate statistical power to detect any statistically significant treatment effects;

•

we may enroll patients at clinical trial sites in countries that are inexperienced with clinical trials in general, or with the indication that is the subject of the trial;

•

we may enroll patients at clinical trial sites in countries that have a different standard of care for patients in general, or with respect to the indication that is the subject of the trial;

•

our third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all;

•

regulators, institutional review boards or independent ethics committees may not authorize us or our investigators to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site or may require us to submit additional data, conduct additional studies or amend our investigational new drug application, or IND, or comparable application prior to commencing a clinical trial;

•

we may have delays in reaching or may fail to reach agreement on acceptable clinical trial contracts or clinical trial protocols with prospective trial sites;

•

we may have to suspend or terminate clinical trials of Translarna or our product candidates for various reasons, including a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;

•

regulators, institutional review boards or independent ethics committees may require that we or our investigators suspend or terminate clinical research for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;

the cost of clinical trials of Translarna or our product candidates may be greater than we anticipate;

•

the supply or quality of Translarna or our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of Translarna or our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate; or

•

Translarna or our product candidates may have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, causing us or our investigators, regulators, institutional review boards or independent ethics committees to suspend or terminate the trials.

For example, the Phase 2 Moonfish study, which was evaluating the safety and efficacy of RG7800 under our SMA collaboration, was terminated in December 2016 following a suspension and clinical hold in the first half of 2015 to investigate an eye finding in a 39-week study in cynomolgus monkeys. The suspension and termination of Moonfish resulted in unanticipated delays in the advancement of the SMA program.

Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in testing or marketing authorizations. We do not know whether any preclinical tests or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize Translarna or our product candidates, allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, or impair our ability to successfully commercialize Translarna or our product candidates, and so may harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our conclusions regarding the activity and potential efficacy of Translarna in nmDMD are primarily based on retrospective, subgroup and meta-analyses of the results of our Phase 2b and ACT DMD clinical trials of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. Other than with respect to certain of our meta-analyses, results of our analyses are expressed as nominal p-values, which are generally considered less reliable indicators of efficacy than adjusted p-values. In addition, retrospective analyses are generally considered less reliable than pre-specified analyses.

After determining that we did not achieve the primary efficacy endpoint with the pre-specified level of statistical significance in our completed ACT DMD and Phase 2b clinical trials of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, we performed subgroup, retrospective, and meta-analyses. We submitted these analyses to the FDA as part of our NDA, taking the position that the totality of clinical data from these trials support the clinical benefit of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. In addition, after determining that the primary efficacy endpoint did not achieve statistical significance in ACT DMD or our Phase 2b clinical trial of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, we performed retrospective and subgroup analyses that we believe provide sufficient support for concluding that Translarna was active and showed clinically meaningful improvements over placebo in these trials.

We believe that our reliance upon the additional analyses of the results of these trials was warranted, but the FDA typically does not find a retrospective analysis performed after unblinding trial results to be persuasive because it can result in the introduction of bias if the analysis is inappropriately tailored or influenced by knowledge of the data and actual results.

Some of our favorable statistical data from these trials also are based on nominal p-values that reflect only one particular comparison when more than one comparison is possible. Typically, a trial result is interpreted as being statistically significant if the chance of the same result occurring with the placebo is less than one in 20, resulting in a p-value of less than 0.05. Nominal p-values cannot be compared to the typical significance level (p-value less than 0.05) to determine statistical significance without adjusting for the testing of multiple dose groups, end points or analyses of subgroups. Because of these limitations, regulatory authorities typically give greater weight to results from pre-specified analyses and adjusted p-values and less weight to results from post-hoc, retrospective analyses and nominal p-values. A p-value is considered nominal if it is the result of one particular comparison prior to any pre-specified multiplicity adjustment, such as when two active treatments are compared to placebo or when two or more subgroups are analyzed. For example, the p-values in ACT DMD for change from baseline at week 48 in the 6-minute walk test, or 6MWT (which we also refer to as 6-minute walk distance, or 6MWD) and each secondary end point timed function test in the pre-specified subgroup of patients with a baseline 300-400 meter 6MWD had p-values of less than 0.05. The FDA considered these p-values to be nominal because of the sequential testing method we used.

On February 22, 2016, we received a Refuse to File, or RTF, letter from the FDA stating the FDA’s opinion that both the Phase 2b and Phase 3 ACT DMD trials were negative and did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness and that our NDA did not contain adequate information regarding the abuse potential of Translarna. Additionally, the FDA stated that we had proposed a post-hoc adjustment of ACT DMD that eliminates data from a majority of enrolled patients. Our reliance on nominal p-values for some of our statistical data and our use of retrospective analyses had a negative impact on the FDA’s interpretation of the results of our Phase 2b trial, ACT DMD and the totality of the data from our clinical trials. The FDA reiterated this view in the Complete Response Letter that it sent to us in October 2017 and its denial of our appeal of that letter.

Our reliance on nominal p-values for some of our statistical data and our use of retrospective analyses has also had a negative impact on the EMA’s evaluation of our last application for continued marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, including delays in timing of the CHMP’s opinion with respect to the annual renewal of our marketing authorization, and could negatively impact regulatory determinations by regulators in other territories with respect to new or existing authorizations.

An unfavorable view of our data and analyses by the FDA and EMA for Translarna has and could continue to negatively impact our ability to obtain or maintain authorizations to market Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. An inability to obtain new marketing authorizations or maintain our current marketing authorization in the EEA would have a material adverse effect on our revenue from Translarna and would materially harm our business, financial results and results of operations.

Because we are developing Translarna and our product candidates for the treatment of diseases in which there is little clinical experience and, in some cases, using new endpoints or methodologies, there is increased risk that the outcome of our clinical trials will not be favorable.

There are no marketed therapies approved to treat the underlying cause of nmDMD. In addition, there has been limited historical clinical trial experience generally for the development of drugs to treat nmDMD and other diseases that we are studying or have studied, including, nmCF, nmMPS I, nonsense mutation aniridia, and nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5. As a result, the design and conduct of clinical trials for these diseases, particularly for drugs to address the underlying nonsense mutations causing these diseases in some subsets of patients, is subject to increased risk.

For example, on March 2, 2017, we announced that the primary and secondary endpoints were not achieved in ACT CF, our Phase 3 clinical trial for Translarna in nmCF. As a result, we have discontinued our clinical development of Translarna for nmCF.

Prior to the Phase 2b clinical trial of Translarna for nmDMD, there was no precedent of an established trial design to evaluate the efficacy of Translarna in nmDMD over a 48 week duration. In addition, clinical understanding of the methodologies used to analyze the resulting data were also limited. The study design and enrollment criteria for ACT DMD were based on available natural history data of the disease, including third-party data and results from our Phase 2b clinical trial. An evolving understanding in the DMD community has led to a greater appreciation of the optimal window for the 6MWT in assessing physical function. We believe that this factor may have led to the primary efficacy endpoint in the intent to treat population not achieving statistical significance in ACT DMD.

We are faced with similar challenges in connection with the design of our studies of Translarna in nonsense mutation aniridia, and nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5, and such similar challenges existed in our study of nmMPS I, which study we stopped in 2017, because there is also limited historical clinical trial experience for the development of drugs to treat the underlying cause of these disorders.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in our clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates, including Study 041 or our Phase 2 studies of Translarna in nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5, if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials. The studies under our SMA collaboration face similar risks.

Each of the indications we are currently pursuing for Translarna and our product candidates are characterized by relatively small patient populations, which could result in slow enrollment of clinical trial participants. The feasibility of patient enrollment was a critical factor discussed with the EMA in connection with the specific obligation to conduct Study 041, in particular due to factors that increase the challenges of enrollment, such as the small nmDMD patient population, the patient eligibility criteria for the mITT for Study 041, and the fact that Translarna is available to patients in the EEA and other limited territories pursuant to commercial and EAP programs.

In addition, our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that could be competitive with our product candidates. As a result, potential clinical trial sites may elect to dedicate their limited resources to participation in our competitors’ clinical trials and not ours, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates.

the ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment; and

•

proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients.

Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients in Study 041 or our Phase 2 studies of Translarna in nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5 or any of our, or our collaboration partners’, other clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. As the conduct of Study 041 is a specific obligation to our marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, any such delay or inability to enroll sufficient patients could have a material adverse effect on our ability to maintain our authorization in the EEA and, failure to maintain such authorization would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial performance.

For example, we amended the study design for our proof-of-concept study for Translarna for the treatment of nmMPS I to include patients currently on enzyme replacement therapy, which contributed to delays in site initiation and patient accrual. Despite the protocol amendment, we continued to encounter difficulties identifying qualified patients for this study and stopped the study due to the lack of patients.

If serious adverse or inappropriate side effects are identified during the development of Translarna or any other product candidate or for any product for which we have or may obtain marketing approval, including Translarna and Emflaza, we may need to abandon or limit our development and/or marketing of that product or product candidate.

Translarna and our product candidates are in clinical or preclinical development and their risk of failure is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. If Translarna or our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a benefit-risk perspective. Many compounds that initially showed promise in clinical or earlier stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound.

For example, although we did not observe a pattern of liver enzyme elevations in our Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trials of Translarna, we did observe modest elevations of liver enzymes in some subjects in one of our Phase 1 clinical trials. These elevated enzyme levels did not require cessation of Translarna administration, and enzyme levels typically normalized after completion of the treatment phase. We did not observe any increases in bilirubin, which can be associated with serious harm to the liver, in the Phase 1 clinical trial.

In addition, in Study 009, our first Phase 3 clinical trial of Translarna for the treatment of nmCF, five adverse events in the Translarna arm of the trial that involved the renal system led to discontinuation. As compared to the placebo group, the Translarna treatment arm also had a higher incidence of adverse events of creatinine elevations, which can be an indication of impaired kidney function. In the Translarna treatment arm, more severe clinically meaningful creatinine elevations were reported in conjunction with cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbations. These creatinine elevations were associated with concomitant treatment with antibiotics associated with impaired kidney functions, such as aminoglycosides or vancomycin. This led to the subsequent prohibition of concomitant use of Translarna and these antibiotics, which was successful in addressing this issue in the clinical trial.

In addition, we are obligated to perform certain FDA post-marketing requirements in connection with our marketing authorization of Emflaza in the United States, including pre-clinical and clinical safety studies. If we or others identify previously unknown side effects, whether pursuant to these post-marketing requirements, or otherwise, and in particular if such side-effects are severe, or if known side effects are more frequent or severe than in the past then our marketing authorization for Emflaza may be restricted or withdrawn, changes may be required to the product's label, sales may be adversely impacted, we may be required to undertake additional studies or trials, and government investigations or litigation, including product liability claims, may be brought against us. This is the first time Emflaza will be used on a common use basis, and unknown safety findings may arise through common use, which may lead Emflaza to be restricted or withdrawn, changes may be required to the product's label, sales may be adversely impacted, we may be required to undertake additional studies or trials, and government investigations or litigation, including product liability claims, may be brought against us. Additionally, if the safety warnings in our product labels are not followed, adverse medical situations in patients may arise, resulting in negative publicity

and potential lawsuits, even if our products worked as we described. Any of these occurrences would limit or prevent us from commercializing Emflaza, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial results and operations.

Our focus on the discovery and development of product candidates that target post-transcriptional control processes is unproven, and we do not know whether we will be able to develop products of any, or sustained, commercial value.

Our scientific approach focuses on the discovery and development of product candidates that target post-transcriptional control processes. While a number of commonly used drugs and a growing body of research validate the importance of post-transcriptional control processes in the origin and progression of a number of diseases, no existing drugs have been specifically designed to alter post-transcriptional control processes in the same manner as Translarna or our other product candidates. As a result, our focus on targeting these processes may not result in the discovery and development of commercially viable drugs that safely and effectively treat genetic disorders or other diseases.

For example, on March 2, 2017, we announced that the primary and secondary endpoints were not achieved in ACT CF. As a result, we discontinued our clinical development of Translarna for nmCF and withdrew our type II variation submission with the EMA, which sought approval of Translarna for the treatment of nmCF in the EEA.

In addition, although we have received marketing authorization by the European Commission for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, such marketing authorization is subject to the specific obligation to conduct and submit the results of Study 041 to the EMA and is also subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization by the EMA. In 2016, the FDA refused to file our NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, noting that both the Phase 2b and Phase 3 ACT DMD trials of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD were negative and do not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness.

We may not be successful in renewing our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA or in obtaining full regulatory approval for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD or any indication or for any other potentially commercially viable drug that treats an approved indication by targeting a particular post-transcriptional control process. Furthermore, we may not receive regulatory approval for product candidates that target different post-transcriptional control processes. If we fail to develop and commercialize viable drugs, we will not achieve commercial success.

Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, Emflaza for the treatment of DMD, or any other product candidate that receives marketing authorization, if any, may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Although Translarna is currently authorized by the EMA for marketing for the treatment of nmDMD such marketing authorization is subject to the specific obligation to conduct and submit the results of Study 041 to the EMA and is also subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization by the EMA. Even if our marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD is maintained, or we are successful in obtaining marketing authorization for Translarna for other indications or territories or marketing authorization for any of our other product candidates, such product may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. In addition, Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States may fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Third-party payors may require prior authorizations or failure on another type of treatment before covering a particular drug, particularly with respect to higher-priced drugs. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for a product or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover a product could reduce physician usage of the product, including Emflaza or Translarna. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues or any profits from operations.

The degree of market acceptance of our products or product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

•

the efficacy and potential advantages compared to alternative treatments;

•

the prevalence and severity of any side effects;

•

the ability to offer our products or product candidates for sale at competitive prices;

•

convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments;

•

the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;

adverse publicity about our products or product candidates or favorable publicity about competitive products or product candidates; and

•

any restrictions on concomitant use of other medications.

In addition, because we are developing Translarna for the treatment of different indications, negative results in a clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of Translarna for one indication, such as the results from our ACT CF trial for nmCF, could have a negative impact on the perception of the efficacy of Translarna in a different indication, which could have an adverse effect on our commercialization efforts and financial results.

Our ability to negotiate, secure and maintain third-party coverage and reimbursement may be affected by political, economic and regulatory developments in the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions, including Latin America. Governments continue to impose cost containment measures, and third-party payors are increasingly challenging prices charged for medicines and examining their cost effectiveness, in addition to their safety and efficacy. These and other similar developments could significantly limit the degree of market acceptance of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, Emflaza for the treatment of DMD, or any of our other product candidates that receive marketing authorization.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market, sell and distribute our products or product candidates, we may not be successful in our continuing efforts to commercialize Translarna or Emflaza or commercializing any other product candidate if and when they are approved.

Our past experience in the sale, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products is limited to our activities under the marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, which is subject to annual review and renewal following reassessment of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization by the EMA and satisfaction of the specific obligation to conduct Study 041.

Our commercial launch of Emflaza for DMD represents our first product launch in the United States. We may be unable to successfully execute our commercial strategy for Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States or Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in other territories, including, if approved, in the United States, or for other indications or product candidates that may receive marketing authorization, if any.

Our ongoing commercial strategy for our products involves the development of a commercial infrastructure that spans multiple jurisdictions and is heavily dependent upon our ability to continue to build an infrastructure that is capable of implementing our global commercial strategy. The establishment and development of our commercial infrastructure will continue to be expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to develop our commercial organizations in all intended territories, including in the United States, in a timely manner or at all. Doing so will require a high degree of coordination and compliance with laws and regulations in numerous territories, including in the United States, each state, and other countries in which we do business, including restrictions on advertising practices, enforcement of intellectual property rights, restrictions on pricing or discounts, transparency laws and regulations, and unexpected changes in regulatory requirements and tariffs. If we are unable to effectively coordinate such activities or comply with such laws and regulations, our ability to commercialize Emflaza in the United States and Translarna in the EEA and other jurisdictions in which it is or may be available will be adversely affected. If we are unable to establish and maintain adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, whether independently or with third parties, we may not be able to generate product revenue consistent with our expectations and may not become profitable.

We intend to continue to promote Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in permitted territories using both internal and external resources. We also intend to utilize both internal and external resources in connection with our ongoing commercial launch of Emflaza in the United States.

There are risks involved with establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training an internal commercial team is expensive and time consuming and could delay commercialization efforts. If a commercial launch for any product or product candidate for which we recruit a commercial team and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition such personnel.

The arrangements that we have entered into, or may enter into, with third parties to perform sales and marketing services will generate lower product revenues or profitability of product revenues to us than if we were to market and sell any products that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively.

If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our products or product candidates.

Any of these factors, individually or as a group, if not resolved in a favorable manner may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Similar risks apply in those territories where Translarna is available on a reimbursed basis under an EAP program.

All of our sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD currently occur in territories outside of the United States, which subjects us to additional business risks that could adversely affect our revenue and results of operations.

All of our revenue from sales of Translarna to date has been generated from countries other than the United States. We have operations in multiple European countries and other territories, including Latin America. We expect that we will continue to expand our international operations in the future, including in emerging growth markets, pending successful completion of the applicable regulatory processes. International operations inherently subject us to a number of risks and uncertainties, including:

our ability to develop relationships with qualified local distributors and trading companies;

•

political and economic instability in particular foreign economies and markets, in particular in emerging markets, for example in Brazil;

•

diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries outside of the United States;

•

differing labor regulations and business practices; and

•

regulatory and compliance risks that relate to maintaining accurate information and control over sales and distributors’ and service providers’ activities that may fall within the purview of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, UK Bribery Act or similar local regulation.

For example, we face risks arising out of the potential uncertainty caused by the June 2016 vote in the United Kingdom in favor of exiting the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. In March 2017, the UK government initiated the exit process under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, commencing a period of up to two years for the UK and the other EU member states to negotiate the terms of the withdrawal. Uncertainty over the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU could adversely affect European or worldwide political, regulatory, economic or market conditions and could contribute to instability in global political institutions, regulatory agencies and financial markets. Currency exchange rates in the pound sterling and the euro with respect to each other and the U.S. dollar have already been adversely affected by Brexit and, in the event that such foreign exchange volatility were to continue, it could cause volatility in our quarterly financial results. In addition, if the United Kingdom were to significantly alter its regulations affecting the pharmaceutical industry, we could face significant new regulatory costs and challenges.

In addition, some of the countries in which Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD is available for sale are in emerging markets. Some countries within emerging markets, including those in Latin America, may be especially vulnerable to periods of global or regional financial instability or may have very limited resources to spend on health care. We also may be required to increase our reliance on third-party agents within less developed markets. In addition, many emerging market countries have currencies that fluctuate substantially and if such currencies devalue and we cannot offset the devaluations, our financial performance within such countries could be adversely affected.

In addition, in some countries, including those in Latin America, orders for named patient sales may be for multiple months of therapy, which can lead to an unevenness in orders which could result in significant fluctuations in quarterly net product sales. Other factors may also contribute to fluctuations in quarterly net product sales including Translarna’s availability in any particular territory, government actions, economic pressures, political unrest and other factors. Net product sales are impacted by factors, such as the timing of decisions by regulatory authorities, in particular the FDA and the EMA with respect to our ability to market or sell Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, and our ability to successfully negotiate favorable pricing and reimbursement processes on a timely basis in the countries in which we have or may obtain regulatory approval, including the United States, EEA and other territories.

Any of these factors may, individually or as a group, have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

As we continue to expand our existing international operations, we may encounter new risks.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current products and product candidates and any products we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide.

There is currently no marketed therapy, other than Translarna in the EEA, which has received approval for the treatment of the underlying cause of nmDMD. Sarepta Therapeutics recently received approval in the United States for a treatment addressing the underlying cause of disease for different mutations in the DMD gene. Other biopharmaceutical companies are developing treatments for the underlying cause of disease for different mutations in the DMD gene (Sarepta, Daiichi Sankyo, Eloxx and Nippon Shinyaku).

Diacomit is marketed in the European Union by Laboratoires Biocodex for the treatment of Dravet syndrome. Other companies are also pursuing product candidates for the treatment of Dravet syndrome, including GW Pharmaceuticals, Zogenix, and Insys Therapeutics. Aniridia therapeutic interventions, such as artificial iris implantation, are being developed by HumanOptics AG. Our SMA collaboration with Roche and the SMA Foundation also faces competition. For example, in December 2016, the FDA approved nusinersen, a drug developed by Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and marketed by Biogen, to treat SMA. AveXis, Inc. is also evaluating a gene therapy product candidate for the treatment of SMA. Other companies are also pursuing product candidates for the treatment of SMA, including Trophos (also in collaboration with Roche), Kowa, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Cytokinetics.

Although the FDA has not approved a corticosteroid specifically for DMD in the United States other than Emflaza, we face competition in the U.S. DMD market from prednisone, which, while not approved for DMD in the United States, is generically available and has been prescribed off label for DMD patients.

Our competitors may develop products that are more effective, safer, more convenient or less costly than any that we are marketing or developing or that would render our products or product candidates obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors may also obtain marketing authorization for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our products and product candidates, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

We believe that many competitors are attempting to develop therapeutics for the target indications of our products and product candidates, including academic institutions, government agencies, public and private research organizations, large pharmaceutical companies and smaller more focused companies.

Many of our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to or necessary for our programs.

Even if we are able to commercialize Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD on a broad scale, commercialize Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States, or commercialize Translarna for other indications or any other product candidate that we develop, Translarna, Emflaza and any other product or product candidate may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business.

We may not obtain adequate coverage or reimbursement for our products, including Emflaza and Translarna, or we may be required to sell our products at an unsatisfactory price. In addition, obtaining pricing, coverage and reimbursement approvals can be a time consuming and expensive process. Our business would be materially adversely affected if we do not receive these approvals on a timely basis.

The regulations and practices that govern marketing authorizations, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries, including almost all of the member states of the EEA, require approval of the sale (list) price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, including the European market, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing authorization for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations, in some countries at national as well as regional levels, that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more products, including Emflaza and Translarna or other product candidates, even following marketing authorization.

Our ability to successfully commercialize Translarna, Emflaza or any other product candidate that receives marketing authorization will depend in large part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, managed health care organizations and other third-party payors and organizations. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and managed health care organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the EU and U.S. healthcare industries and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities, including the United States government and state legislatures, and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Prices at which our products are reimbursed can be subject to challenge, reduction or denial by the government and other payers. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with discounts off the products’ sale (list) prices and are challenging the prices manufacturers charge for medical products. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for Translarna, Emflaza or any other product that we may commercialize and, if coverage is available, the level of reimbursement is also uncertain.

Reimbursement levels may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product or product candidate for which we obtain marketing authorization. Obtaining reimbursement for Emflaza and for Translarna has been and is expected to continue to be, particularly difficult due to price considerations typically associated with drugs that are developed to treat conditions that affect a small population of patients. In addition, third-party payors are likely to impose strict requirements for reimbursement of a higher priced drug, such as prior authorization and the requirement to try other therapies first. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for a product or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover a product could reduce physician usage of the product, including Emflaza or Translarna. If reimbursement is not available or is available only on a limited basis, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product or product candidate for which we have obtained or may obtain marketing authorization, including Emflaza or Translarna.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the drug’s approved indications as determined by the applicable regulatory authority. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does

not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs, and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Further, coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws, enforcement policies or administrative determinations that presently restrict the importation of drugs into the United States from other countries where they may be sold at lower prices.

In the United States, third-party payors include federal health care programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and Veterans Health Administration programs; managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Several of the U.S. federal health care programs require that drug manufacturers extend discounts or pay rebates to certain programs in order for their products to be covered and reimbursed. For example, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers of covered outpatient drugs to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the federal government as a condition for coverage of the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drug(s) by state Medicaid programs. The amount of the rebate for each product is based on a statutory formula and may be subject to an additional discount if certain pricing increases more than inflation. State Medicaid programs and Medicaid managed care plans can seek additional “supplemental” rebates from manufacturers in connection with states’ establishment of preferred drug lists. A further requirement for Medicaid coverage is that the manufacturer enter into a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) agreement with the Secretary for Veterans Affairs to extend discounted pricing to the Veterans Health Administration.

Similarly, in order for a covered outpatient drug to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicare Part B and Medicaid programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts on the covered outpatient drug to entities that are enrolled and participating in the 340B drug pricing program, which is a federal program that requires manufacturers to provide discounts to certain statutorily-defined safety-net providers. The 340B discount for each product is calculated based on certain Medicaid Drug Rebate Program metrics that manufacturers are required to report to CMS.

Emflaza is also eligible for reimbursement under the Medicare Part D program. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities, which will provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Part D prescription drug formularies are required to include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan likely will be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain.

In addition, U.S. private health insurers often rely upon Medicare coverage policies and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. Any such coverage or payment limitations may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors. Payment by private payors is also subject to payor-determined coverage and reimbursement policies that vary considerably and are subject to change without notice. We expect that coverage and reimbursement of Emflaza in the United States will vary from commercial payor to commercial payor. Many commercial payors, such as managed care plans, manage access to prescription drugs partly to control costs to their plans, and may use drug formularies and medical policies to limit their exposure. Exclusion from policies can directly reduce product usage in the payor’s patient population and may negatively impact utilization in other payor plans, as well.

There has been recent negative publicity and increasing legislative and public scrutiny around pharmaceutical drug pricing in the U.S., in particular with respect to orphan drugs and specifically with respect to Emflaza. Moreover, U.S. government authorities and third-party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate drug prices and reimbursement, often with particular focus on orphan drugs. These dynamics may give rise to heightened attention and potential negative reactions to pricing decisions for Emflaza and products for which we may receive regulatory approval in the future, possibly limiting our ability to generate revenue and attain profitability.

Moreover, in 2017, the U.S. Congress considered legislation to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the 2010 U.S. healthcare reform legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, known collectively as the Affordable Care Act), which could have an impact on coverage and reimbursement for healthcare items and services covered by the federal and state healthcare programs as well as plans in the private health insurance market. The so-called “individual mandate” was repealed as part of tax reform legislation adopted in December 2017. The Trump Administration and the U.S. Congress may continue to seek to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. We cannot assure that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as amended in the future, will not adversely affect our business and financial results and we cannot predict how future federal or state legislative or administrative changes relating to healthcare reform will affect our business.

In the European Union, reference pricing systems and other measures may lead to cost containment and reduced prices with respect to Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and other product candidates that might receive marketing authorization in the future. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for our product or any of our product candidates that may receive marketing authorization, or a reduction in coverage for payment rates for our product or any such product candidates, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, in the European Union, for medicines authorized by the centralized authorization procedure, an authorized trader, such as a wholesaler, can purchase a medicine in one EU member state and import the product into another EU member state. This process is called “parallel distribution”. As a result, a purchaser in one EU member state may seek to import Translarna from another EU member state where Translarna is sold at a lower price. This could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth.

Similarly, sales of Emflaza in the United States could also be reduced if deflazacort is imported into the United States from lower-priced markets, whether legally or illegally. For example, in the United States, prices for pharmaceuticals are generally higher than in the bordering nations of Mexico and Canada. There have been proposals to legalize the import of pharmaceuticals from outside the United States. If such legislation were enacted, our revenues from Emflaza could be reduced, and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, cyber-attacks or a deficiency in our cyber-security.

We collect, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information, including personal information and information relating to intellectual property, on internal information systems and through the information systems of third-party vendors with whom we contract. Despite the implementation of security measures, these information systems are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions over the Internet or other mechanisms, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusion, including by computer hackers, criminals, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our clinical and commercialization activities and business operations, in addition to possibly requiring substantial expenditures of resources to remedy. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, damage to our reputation, suffer loss or harm to our intellectual property rights and the further research, development and commercial efforts of our products and product candidates could be delayed.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit clinical trials or commercialization of any current or future products.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the commercialization of Translarna, Emflaza and any other product that we may market or commercialize, and in connection with the human clinical trials testing of our products and product candidates. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

•

reduced resources of our management to pursue our business strategy;

•

decreased demand for our products or any product candidates that we may develop;

•

injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention;

•

the inability to continue current clinical trials or begin planned clinical trials;

the withdrawal of products from the market, or the cessation of development or regulatory disapproval of product candidates.

We have product liability insurance that covers our commercial sales, sales pursuant to reimbursed EAP programs and clinical trials up to a $25.0 million annual aggregate limit, and subject to a per claim deductible, which was extended to cover corresponding risks for Emflaza at the time of its acquisition. Our insurance limits may not be adequate to cover all liabilities and defense costs that we may incur. We may need to further increase our insurance coverage as we commercialize Translarna and Emflaza, or as and when we begin commercializing any other product candidate that receives marketing authorization. The cost of insurance coverage is highly variable, based on a wide range of factors. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability or defense costs that may arise.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations currently, and may in the future, involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and medical and biological materials, and produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes, we cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials or disposal of hazardous wastes, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We also maintain liability insurance for some of these risks, but our liability policy excludes pollution and has an aggregate coverage limit of $11.0 million.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or manufacturing and distribution efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product, product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on products, research programs and product candidates for specific indications. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential.

For example, in connection with our acquisition of Emflaza, we paid upfront consideration comprised of $75 million in cash, funded through cash on hand, and 6,683,598 shares of our common stock. We are also required to make contingent payments to Marathon based on annual net sales of Emflaza beginning in 2018, up to a specified aggregate maximum amount for such payments, and a single $50 million sales-based milestone, in each case subject to the terms and conditions of the Asset Purchase Agreement. We may never realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition of Emflaza and by investing our limited resources in this product, we may be required to forgo or delay other opportunities.

In addition, we initiated separate Phase 2 clinical trials of Translarna for the treatment of hemophilia in 2009 and the metabolic disorder methylmalomic acidemia in 2010, but then suspended these clinical trials to focus on the development of Translarna for nmDMD and nmCF when we found variability in the assays used in these trials and preliminary data from these trials did not indicate definitive evidence of activity. We also initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial of Translarna for treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis type I caused by nonsense mutation in 2015, but in the third quarter of 2017 we stopped enrollment and began to wind down this study due to difficulties identifying qualified patients. In March 2017, we discontinued our clinical development of Translarna for nmCF based on the negative outcome of a Phase 3 clinical trial. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products.

We have based our research and development efforts on small-molecule drugs that target post-transcriptional control processes. Notwithstanding our large investment to date and anticipated future expenditures in proprietary technologies, including our GEMS, nonsense mutation and alternative splicing technologies, which we use in the discovery of these molecules, to date we have only been granted marketing authorization in the EEA to treat nmDMD under a restricted label that is subject to the specific obligation to conduct Study 041 as well as annual renewal and reassessment requirements. We may not be able to

successfully renew or satisfy the ongoing requirements of our current marketing authorization for nmDMD in the EEA and we may never successfully develop any other marketable drugs or indications using our scientific approach. As a result of pursuing the development of product candidates using our proprietary technologies, we may fail to develop product candidates or address indications based on other scientific approaches that may offer greater commercial potential or for which there is a greater likelihood of success. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. These research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development.

If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and based on our current commercial, research and development plans, we expect to continue to incur significant operating expenses for the foreseeable future. We may never generate profits from operations or maintain profitability.

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. As of December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $814.1 million. We have historically financed our operations primarily through the issuance and sale of our common stock in public offerings, the private placements of our preferred stock, collaborations, bank debt, convertible debt financings, and grants and clinical trial support from governmental and philanthropic organizations and patient advocacy groups in the disease areas addressed by our product and product candidates. Since 2014, we have also relied on revenues generated from net sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in territories outside of the United States, and in May 2017, we began to recognize revenue generated from net sales of Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States. Based on our current commercial, research and development plans, we expect to continue to incur significant operating expenses for the foreseeable future, which we anticipate will be partially offset by revenues generated from the sale of both Translarna and Emflaza. We expect to continue to generate operating losses through 2018 and, while we anticipate that operating losses generated in future periods should decline versus prior periods, we may never generate profits from operations or maintain profitability. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter.

On April 20, 2017, we acquired all rights to Emflaza. Upfront consideration for the acquisition was comprised of $75 million in cash, funded through cash on hand, and 6,683,598 shares of our common stock. In addition, we expect to incur significant costs in connection with liabilities we assumed as part of the acquisition, including the obligation to complete certain post-marketing requirements in connection with the Emflaza marketing authorization.

Our current ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna is dependent upon our ability to maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients aged five years and older. The marketing authorization in the EEA is subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization and is further subject to a specific obligation to conduct and report the results of Study 041, a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, 18-month, placebo-controlled trial, followed by an 18-month open-label extension, according to an agreed protocol, in order to confirm the efficacy and safety of Translarna in the approved patient population. Enrolling, conducting and reporting a clinical trial is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we expect that we will incur material costs related to the implementation and conduct of Study 041. In addition, it is likely that we will enroll patients in Study 041 in countries where Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD is currently available on a reimbursed basis, which could negatively impact growth in our net product sales. We may experience unknown complications with Study 041 and may not achieve the pre-specified endpoint with statistical significance, which would have a material adverse effect on our ability to maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA.

If, in any annual renewal cycle, the EMA determines that the balance of benefits and risks of using Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD has changed materially or that we have not or are unable to comply with the specific obligation to complete Study 041 or any other requirement that has been or may be placed on the marketing authorization, the European Commission could, at the EMA’s recommendation, vary, suspend, withdraw or refuse to renew the marketing authorization for Translarna or impose other specific obligations or restrictions, which would have a materially adverse effect on our business. We expect to incur significant costs in connection with our efforts to maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA. If our marketing authorization in the EEA is not renewed, or our product label is materially restricted, we would lose all, or a significant portion of, our ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna, whether pursuant to a commercial or a reimbursed early access program, or EAP program, and throughout all territories. For additional information, see the risk factor under “Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of our Products and our Product Candidates” titled, “Our marketing authorization in the EEA for

Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD is a “conditional marketing authorization” that requires annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization and is further conditioned upon our ability to satisfy the specific obligation to conduct and report the results of Study 041 by September 2021, and, as such, there is ongoing risk that we may be unable to maintain such authorization. If we are unable to obtain renewal of such marketing authorization in any future renewal cycle, we would lose all, or a significant portion of, our ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna, whether pursuant to a commercial or an EAP program, and throughout all territories, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial performance and results of operations."

We also expect that our efforts to advance Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States, whether pursuant to the formal dispute resolution request process with the FDA, or otherwise, will be time-consuming and may be expensive. For additional information, see the risk factor under “Risks Related to Development and Commercialization of our Products and our Product Candidates” titled, “If there are delays in obtaining regulatory approval in the United States, we will not be able to commercialize Translarna for nmDMD in that territory and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired. In the event that the FDA requires us to conduct a new clinical trial in nmDMD which, if successful, may enable FDA review of an NDA submission by us, we would expect to incur significant costs, which may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.”

We anticipate that our expenses will further increase in connection with our commercialization efforts in the United States for Emflaza and in the EEA and other territories for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, including the expansion of our infrastructure and corresponding sales and marketing, legal and regulatory, distribution and manufacturing and administrative and employee-based expenses.

In addition, the clinical and regulatory developments noted in this risk factor may exacerbate the risks related to our commercialization efforts set forth under the heading “Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of our Products and our Product Candidates,” which could increase the costs associated with our commercial activities or have a negative impact on our revenues. For additional information, see also “Risks Related to the Regulation of our Products and our Product Candidates” “Commercialization of Translarna has been in, and is expected to continue to take place in, countries that tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues. Failure to obtain and maintain acceptable pricing and reimbursement terms for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA and other countries where Translarna is available would delay or prevent us from marketing our product in such regions, which would adversely affect our anticipated revenue, growth and business.”

We may seek to further expand and diversify our product pipeline through opportunistically in-licensing or acquiring the rights to products, product candidates or technologies, similar to our recent acquisition of Emflaza, and we may incur expenses, including with respect to transaction costs, subsequent development costs or any upfront, milestone or other payments or other financial obligations associated with any such transaction, which would increase our future capital requirements.

In addition to the foregoing, we expect to continue to incur significant costs in connection with our open label extension trials of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD as well as our studies for nonsense mutation aniridia and nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5 and our FDA post-marketing requirements with respect to Emflaza in the United States. We also expect to incur ongoing research and development expenses for our other product candidates, including our oncology program.

We have begun seeking and intend to continue to seek marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in territories outside of the EEA. These efforts may significantly impact the timing and extent of our commercialization expenses.

With respect to our outstanding 3.00% convertible senior notes due August 15, 2022, or the Convertible Notes, cash interest payments are payable on a semi-annual basis in arrears, which will require total funding of $4.5 million annually. Additionally, under the terms of our credit and security agreement with MidCap Financial Trust, cash interest payments are payable monthly in arrears.

In addition, our expenses will increase if and as we:

•

execute our strategy for Emflaza in the United States, including commercialization and integration efforts;

•

satisfy contractual and regulatory obligations that we assumed through the Emflaza acquisition;

•

are required to complete any additional clinical trials, non-clinical studies or CMC assessments or analyses in order to advance Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States or elsewhere;

•

are required to take other steps, in addition to Study 041, to maintain our current marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD or to obtain further marketing authorizations for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD or other indications;

add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our product development and commercialization efforts.

We also could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of the pending securities class action lawsuits brought against us and certain of our current and former executive officers and the derivative lawsuits brought against us, as a nominal defendant, certain of our current and former executive officers and certain of our current and former directors, as described under Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, or any other such lawsuits brought against us in the future.

Our ability to generate profits from operations and become and remain profitable depends on our ability to successfully develop and commercialize drugs that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including:

•

negotiating, securing, and maintaining adequate pricing, coverage and reimbursement terms, on a timely basis, for Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States;

•

maintaining orphan exclusivity for Emflaza and successfully completing all FDA post-marketing requirements with respect to Emflaza or meeting any requirements to obtain any grant of pediatric exclusivity;

•

maintaining the marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA, including successfully obtaining annual renewals of the marketing authorization, fulfilling the specific obligation to conduct and report the results of Study 041 to the EMA, and meeting any ongoing requirements related to the marketing authorization;

•

negotiating, securing and maintaining adequate pricing and reimbursement terms for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD on a timely basis, or at all, in the countries in which we have obtained, and may obtain, regulatory approval;

•

advancing Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States in a timely manner, or at all, including resolving the matters set forth in the FDA’s denial of our appeal to the Complete Response Letter we received from the FDA in connection with our NDA for Translarna for nmDMD, performing additional clinical trials, non-clinical studies or CMC assessments or analyses at significant cost which, if successful, may enable FDA review of an NDA submission by us and, ultimately, may support approval of Translarna for nmDMD in the United States;

•

expanding the territories in which we are approved to market Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD;

•

minimizing the enrollment impact of Study 041 on commercialization efforts for Translarna for nmDMD;

•

developing Translarna for the treatment of additional indications, including nonsense mutation aniridia and nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5 and successfully advancing our other programs and collaborations, including our oncology and SMA programs;

•

establishing a global commercial infrastructure, including the sales, marketing and distribution capabilities to effectively market and sell Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA and other parts of the world;

•

implementing marketing and distribution relationships with third parties in territories where we do not pursue direct commercialization;

•

launching commercial sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in accordance with our estimated timeline;

•

identifying patients eligible for treatment with Emflaza for DMD;

•

identifying patients eligible for treatment with Translarna for nmDMD;

•

obtaining approval to market Translarna for the treatment of other indications;

•

expanding the approved product label of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD;

contracting for the manufacture and distribution of commercial quantities of Translarna and Emflaza.

We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant enough to generate profits from operations. Even if we do generate profits from operations, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to generate profits from operations and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment in our company.

We may need additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

As noted in the prior risk factor, we expect to incur significant expenses related to our clinical, regulatory, commercial, legal, research and development, and other business efforts. We believe that our cash flows from product sales, together with existing cash and cash equivalents, including the net proceeds from our term loan facility with MidCap Financial, our Convertible Note offering, public offerings of common stock, marketable securities and research funding that we expect to receive under our collaborations, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next twelve months. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

•

our ability to commercialize and market Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States;

•

our ability to negotiate, secure and maintain adequate pricing, coverage and reimbursement terms, on a timely basis, for Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States and Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA and other territories outside of the United States;

•

our ability to maintain orphan exclusivity for, and successfully complete all FDA post-marketing requirements with respect to, Emflaza, or meet any requirements to obtain any grant of pediatric exclusivity;

•

our ability to satisfy our obligations under the terms of the credit and security agreement with MidCap Financial Trust;

•

our ability to maintain the marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, including whether the EMA determines on an annual basis that the benefit-risk balance of Translarna supports renewal of our marketing authorization in the EEA, on the current approved label;

•

the costs, timing and outcome of Study 041;

•

the costs, timing and outcome of our efforts to advance Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States, including our ability to resolve the matters set forth in the FDA’s denial of our appeal to the Complete Response Letter we received from the FDA in connection with our NDA for Translarna for nmDMD, whether we will be required to perform additional clinical trials, non-clinical studies or CMC assessments or analyses at significant cost which, if successful, may enable FDA review of an NDA submission by us and, ultimately, may support approval of Translarna for nmDMD in the United States;

•

the progress and results of our pediatric study of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, our open label extension clinical trials of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD as well as our studies for nonsense mutation aniridia and nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5 and activities under our oncology program;

•

the scope, costs and timing of our commercialization activities, including product sales, marketing, legal, regulatory, distribution and manufacturing, for both Emflaza for the treatment of DMD and Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and any of our other product candidates that may receive marketing authorization or any additional indications or territories in which we receive authorization to market Translarna;

•

the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory review of our other product candidates and Translarna in other territories or for indications other than nmDMD;

the scope, progress, results and costs of preclinical development, laboratory testing and clinical trials for Translarna for additional indications and for our other product candidates;

•

revenue received from commercial sales of Translarna or Emflaza or any of our other product candidates;

•

our ability to obtain additional and maintain existing reimbursed named patient and cohort EAP programs for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD on adequate terms, or at all;

•

the ability and willingness of patients and healthcare professionals to access Translarna through alternative means if pricing and reimbursement negotiations in the applicable territory do not have a positive outcome;

the extent to which we acquire or invest in other businesses, products, product candidates, and technologies, including the success of any acquisition, in-licensing or other strategic transaction we may pursue, and the costs of subsequent development requirements and commercialization efforts, including with respect to our acquisition of Emflaza; and

•

our ability to establish and maintain collaborations, including our collaborations with Roche and the SMA Foundation, and our ability to obtain research funding and achieve milestones under these agreements.

Conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval and achieve product sales for certain product candidates or indications. In addition, our products and product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success, including Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and Emflaza for the treatment of DMD.

To date almost all of our product revenue has been attributable to sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in territories outside of the United States. We are continuing to engage in significant commercialization efforts for this product. In order to continue sales and our commercial launch of Translarna, we must maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA and secure market access through commercial programs following the conclusion of pricing and reimbursement terms at sustainable levels in the member states of the EEA or through EAP programs in the EEA and other territories. Although we have begun to commercialize and market Emflaza in the United States, to date, we have not generated significant revenue from Emflaza. Our ability to generate product revenue from Emflaza will largely depend on the coverage and reimbursement levels set by governmental authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors.

Other commercial revenue, if any, would be derived from product acquisitions or, if none, from sales of products that we are not planning to have commercially available for several years, if at all. If our marketing authorization for Translarna in the EEA is not renewed, or our product label is materially restricted, we would lose all, or a significant portion of, our ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, whether pursuant to a commercial or an EAP program and throughout all territories. Likewise, if we fail to maintain our marketing authorization for Emflaza in the United States or lose the non-patent market exclusivity for Emflaza, we will be unable to commercialize and generate revenue from sales of that product.

Accordingly, we may need to continue to rely on additional financing in connection with our continuing operations and to achieve our business objectives. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or based on strategic considerations, even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or our commercialization efforts.

On May 5, 2017, we entered into a credit and security agreement with Midcap Financial Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, or MidCap Financial, as administrative agent and MidCap Financial and other certain institutions as lenders thereto, or the Credit Agreement, that provides for a senior secured term loan facility of $60 million, of which $40 million was drawn by us on May 5, 2017. The remaining $20 million under the senior secured term loan facility would become available to us upon our demonstration (prior to December 31, 2018) of net product revenue equaling or exceeding $120 million for the trailing twelve month period. The maturity date of the Credit Agreement is May 1, 2021, unless terminated earlier.

Borrowings under the Credit Agreement bear interest at a rate per annum equal to LIBOR (with a LIBOR floor rate of 1.00%) plus 6.15%. The Credit Agreement requires us to not have less than $100 million of net revenue (raised to $120 million if the

additional $20 million term loan is issued) for the prior twelve months to be measured on the last day of each fiscal quarter beginning on December 31, 2017.

Additionally, subject to customary exceptions and exclusions, all obligations under the Credit Agreement are secured pursuant to the terms of the Credit Agreement, a Pledge Agreement between us, certain of our subsidiaries, and Midcap Financial, or the Pledge Agreement, and an Intellectual Property and Security Agreement between us and Midcap Financial, or the IP Security Agreement, each dated May 5, 2017. Under the Credit Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, and the IP Security Agreement, we provided to Midcap Financial and the other lenders a perfected, first-priority security interest in all of our personal property, a perfected, first-priority security interest in all of our intellectual property (except that this security interest will not be perfected in intellectual property located outside the United States unless our cash position falls below a pre-specified threshold), and a perfected, first-priority pledge of 65% of the equity ownership interests directly held by us in our wholly owned subsidiary, PTC Therapeutics Holdings (Bermuda) Corp. Limited.

A failure to comply with the conditions of our Credit Agreement could result in an event of default. An event of default under the Credit Agreement includes, among other things, a failure to pay any amount due under the Credit Agreement as well as the occurrence of events that could reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse effect, including if we were to fail to maintain our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA or if the FDA were to withdraw any of our products from the market, including Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States.

In the event of an acceleration of amounts due under our Credit Agreement as a result of an event of default, we may not have sufficient funds or may be unable to arrange for additional financing to repay the term loans or to make any accelerated payments, and the lenders could seek to enforce security interests in the collateral securing the term loans, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, our indebtedness under the Credit Agreement could have significant adverse consequences, including, among other things:

•

requiring us to dedicate a substantial portion of cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities to the payment of interest on, and principal of, the term loans, which will reduce the amounts available to fund working capital, capital expenditures, product development efforts and other general corporate purposes;

•

obligating us to negative covenants restricting our activities, including limitations on dispositions, mergers or acquisitions, encumbering our intellectual property, incurring indebtedness or liens, paying dividends, making investments and engaging in certain other business transactions;

•

limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and our industry;

•

placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors who have less debt or competitors with comparable debt at more favorable interest rates; and

•

limiting our ability to borrow additional amounts for working capital, capital expenditures, research and development efforts, acquisitions, debt service requirements, execution of our business strategy and other purposes.

Any of these factors could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may engage in strategic transactions to acquire assets, businesses, or rights to products, product candidates or technologies or form collaborations or make investments in other companies or technologies that could harm our operating results, dilute our stockholders’ ownership, increase our debt, or cause us to incur significant expense.

As part of our business strategy, we may engage in additional strategic transactions to expand and diversify our product pipeline, including through the acquisition of assets, businesses, or rights to products, product candidates or technologies or through strategic alliances or collaborations, similar to our acquisition of Emflaza. We may not identify suitable strategic transactions, or complete such transactions in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis, or at all. Moreover, we may devote resources to potential opportunities that are never completed or we may incorrectly judge the value or worth of such opportunities. Even if we successfully execute a strategic transaction, we may not be able to realize the anticipated benefits of such transaction, may incur additional debt or assume unknown or contingent liabilities in connection therewith, and may experience losses related to our investments in such transactions. Integration of an acquired company or assets into our existing business may not be successful and may disrupt ongoing operations, require the hiring of additional personnel and the implementation of additional internal systems and infrastructure, and require management resources that would otherwise focus on developing our existing business. Even if we are able to achieve the long-term benefits of a strategic transaction, our expenses and short-term costs may increase materially and adversely affect our liquidity. Any of the foregoing could have a detrimental effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings; debt financings; collaborations; strategic alliances; grants and clinical trial support from governmental and philanthropic organizations and patient advocacy groups in the disease areas addressed by our product candidates; and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements.

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our shareholders’ ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, entering into agreements involving licenses to our intellectual property, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates; or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for our stockholders to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Our ability to develop product candidates, manufacture a commercial scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, and conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for a successful full scale product commercialization is largely limited to our activities with respect to the marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, which is subject to annual review and renewal following reassessment of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization by the EMA and satisfaction of the specific obligation to conduct and report to the EMA Study 041. In addition, other than our marketing authorization in the EEA and the marketing authorizations granted in Israel and South Korea (which are largely contingent upon continued EMA approval), we have not proven our ability to successfully obtain marketing authorizations to sell our products or product candidates. Other than our recent commercialization for Emflaza, we have no history of commercializing pharmaceutical products in the United States. Further, we may not successfully complete development of other product candidates. Consequently, any predictions our stockholders make about our future success or viability may not be

as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history. In addition, as a new business, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors, including, and not limited to, those related to our commercialization of Emflaza and integration of Emflaza into our business.

Our ability to use our net operating losses and certain other tax attributes to offset potential taxable income and related income taxes that would otherwise be due is subject to limitation under the provisions of Sections 382 and 383 of the Code as a result of ownership changes of the Company and could be subject to further annual limitations under such provisions. In addition, we may not generate sufficient future taxable income to use our net operating losses and certain other tax attributes.

If a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” within the meaning of Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code, or Sections 382 and 383, the corporation’s ability to utilize any net operating losses, or NOLs, and certain tax credits and other attributes generated before such an ownership change, is limited. We believe that we have in the past experienced ownership changes within the meaning of Sections 382 and 383 that have resulted in limitations under Sections 382 and 383 (and similar state provisions) on the use of our NOLs and other tax attributes.

However, Sections 382 and 383 of the Code are extremely complex provisions with respect to which there are many uncertainties, and we have not requested a ruling from the IRS to confirm our analysis of the ownership change limitations related to the NOLs generated by the Company. Therefore, we have not established whether the IRS would agree with our analysis regarding the application of Section 382 and 383 of the Code. If the IRS were to disagree with our analysis, or if the Company experiences additional ownership changes in the future, such as the recent issue of shares to Marathon, we could be subject to further annual limitations on the use of the NOLs to offset potential taxable income and related income taxes that would otherwise be due.

Moreover, our ability to use these NOLs to offset potential future taxable income and related income taxes that would otherwise be due is dependent upon our generation of future taxable income. In addition, under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the 2017 Tax Act) enacted on December 22, 2017, the deductibility of federal net operating losses incurred in 2018 and in future years generally is limited to 80% of taxable income for each taxable year, although such losses may be carried forward indefinitely. Therefore, we cannot predict with certainty when, or whether the Company will generate sufficient taxable income to use all of our NOLs.

Changes in our effective income tax rates and the 2017 Tax Act and future changes to U.S. and non-U.S. tax laws could adversely affect our results of operations.

We are subject to income taxes in the Unites States and various foreign jurisdictions. Taxes will be incurred as income is earned among these different jurisdictions. Various factors may have favorable or unfavorable effects on our effective income tax rate. These factors include, but are not limited to, interpretations of existing tax laws, changes in tax laws and rates, the accounting for stock options and other share-based compensation, changes in accounting standards, future levels of research and development spending, changes in the mix and level of pre-tax earnings by taxing jurisdiction, the outcome of examinations by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and other jurisdictions, the accuracy of our estimates for unrecognized tax benefits, the realization of deferred tax assets, or by changes to our ownership or capital structure. The impact on our income tax provision resulting from the above-mentioned factors and others may be significant and could adversely affect our results of operations.

In October 2015, the OECD published “final reports” and launched a global dialogue among member and non-member countries on measures to limit harmful tax competition. These measures are largely directed at counteracting the effects of preferential tax regimes in countries around the world. The measures have, among other things, resulted in the development of a multilateral instrument, or MLI, to incorporate and facilitate changes to tax treaties. In June 2017, a number of countries signed the MLI. In addition, in January 2016, the EU Commission announced an Anti-Tax Avoidance Package containing measures to regulate certain elements of tax planning further and to boost tax transparency for consideration by the European Parliament and Council. In July 2016, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council adopted a Council Directive forming part of the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Package and building upon the OECD BEPS recommendations. EU Member States are required to implement the directive into their domestic laws by December 31, 2018 (or December 31, 2019 in the case of provisions on exit taxation). Further changes, including to the directive, have been proposed as part of an EU corporate tax reform package published in October 2016.

Changes arising from any proposals introduced in connections with the possible new OECD and EU measures could have material adverse consequences on our effective tax rate, the amount of tax we pay and on our financial position and results of operations.

Additionally, in the United States, the 2017 Tax Act was enacted on December 22, 2017, making significant changes to the U.S. corporate income tax system. These changes include a federal statutory rate reduction from 35% to 21%, the elimination or reduction of certain domestic deductions and credits and limitations on the deductibility of interest expense and executive

compensation. The 2017 Tax Act also transitions international taxation from a worldwide system to a modified territorial system and includes base erosion prevention measures on non-U.S. earnings, which has the effect of subjecting certain earnings of our foreign subsidiaries to U.S. taxation as global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). These changes became effective in January 2018. The overall impact of the new federal tax law is uncertain. The U.S. Department of Treasury has broad authority to issue regulations and interpretative guidance that may significantly impact how we will apply the law. In addition, it is uncertain how various states will respond to the 2017 Tax Act.

Although we monitor actual and potential changes to the tax laws in the United States and other jurisdictions, it is very difficult to assess to what extent these changes may impact the way in which we conduct our business or our effective tax rate due to the unpredictability and interdependency of these changes. Changes in tax laws and related regulations and practices could have a material adverse effect on our business operations, cash flows, effective tax rate, financial position and results of operations.

Our marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD is a “conditional marketing authorization” that requires annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization and is further conditioned upon our ability to satisfy the specific obligation to conduct and report the results of Study 041 by September 2021, and, as such, there is ongoing risk that we may be unable to maintain such authorization. If we are unable to obtain renewal of such marketing authorization in any future renewal cycle, we would lose all, or a significant portion of, our ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna, whether pursuant to a commercial or an EAP program and throughout all territories, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial performance and results of operations.

Conditional marketing authorizations based on incomplete clinical data, including our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, may be granted in the EEA for a limited number of listed medicinal products for human use, including products designated as orphan medicinal products under EU law, if (1) the EMA determines that the benefit-risk balance of the product is positive, (2) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (3) unmet medical needs will be fulfilled and (4) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. Specific obligations or conditions, including with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data, may be specified in the conditional marketing authorization. Conditional marketing authorizations are only valid for one year, and must be renewed annually by the European Commission after an assessment by the EMA of the ongoing positive benefit-risk balance in favor of continued authorization and the need for additional or modified conditions.

We received initial marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients aged five years and older from the European Commission in August 2014 as a “conditional marketing authorization.” The marketing authorization is subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization and is further conditioned upon our satisfaction of the specific obligation to conduct and submit the results of Study 041 by September 2021 to the EMA. We expect that as part of the annual EMA assessment, the EMA will consider the ongoing status of Study 041. We are also required to implement measures, including pharmacovigilance plans, which are detailed in the risk management plan.

Our marketing authorization was previously conditioned upon our submission to the EMA of the final efficacy and safety report from ACT DMD during 2015. Although we have fulfilled the condition to submit the ACT DMD report to the EMA, that trial did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of change from baseline at week 48 in distance walked in the 6-minute walk test. The EMA and European Commission did not approve our request for full marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and, instead, approved the renewal of our conditional marketing authorization with the specific obligation to confirm the efficacy and safety of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients aged 5 years or older via Study 041.

Enrolling, conducting and reporting a clinical trial is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we expect that we will incur material costs related to the implementation and conduct of Study 041. We expect that conducting a placebo-controlled trial in nmDMD of this size will be challenging and it is probable that we will enroll patients in territories where Translarna has already become available on a reimbursed basis. We may enroll patients in countries with a different standard of care for nmDMD patients or at clinical trial sites that are inexperienced with clinical trials in general, or specifically with nmDMD trials. In addition, we may experience unknown complications with Study 041 and may not achieve the pre-specified endpoint with statistical significance, which would have a materially adverse effect on our ability to maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA.

As part of our pediatric development commitments under our marketing authorization in the EEA and to support the potential expansion of Translarna’s labeling to younger patients with nmDMD, we initiated a Phase 2 pediatric clinical study to evaluate

the safety and pharmacokinetics of Translarna in patients two to five years of age. The study, initiated in June 2016, includes a four-week screening period, a four-week study period, and a 48-week extension period for patients who complete the four-week study period (52 weeks total treatment). We have submitted to the EMA a label-extension request to our marketing authorization in the EEA to include patients from two to up to five years of age, which includes data from this study. However, there can be no assurances that we will successfully obtain such label extension.

If we fail to satisfy our obligations under the marketing authorization, or if it is determined in any annual renewal cycle that the balance of benefits and risks of using Translarna has changed materially, the European Commission could, at the EMA’s recommendation, vary, suspend, withdraw or refuse to renew the marketing authorization for Translarna. The EMA may also impose other new conditions to our marketing authorization (in addition to Study 041), and may make other recommendations, including new label restrictions. In the event that we do secure annual renewal of the marketing authorization for any given annual renewal cycle, the EMA could nevertheless later determine that we have not complied, or are unable to comply, with any conditions that have been or may be placed on the marketing authorization, including those related to Study 041, which could result in the withdrawal of our marketing authorization or other outcome that would have a materially adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If our marketing authorization in the EEA is not renewed, or our product label is materially restricted, we would lose all, or a significant portion of, our ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna, whether pursuant to a commercial or an EAP program and throughout all territories, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If we are not able to comply with local regulations for our products or product candidates, we will not be able to obtain or maintain product approvals and commercialize our product or product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Translarna, Emflaza, and our product candidates, and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and EMA and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain or renew marketing authorization for Translarna or any product candidate, or maintain our marketing authorization for Emflaza in the United States will prevent us from commercializing such product or product candidate.

As noted in the foregoing risk factors, we may not receive necessary approvals from the FDA, the EMA, or other regulators to further commercialize Translarna for nmDMD or to commercialize Translarna for any other indication or to commercialize any product candidate in any market.

We have not proven our ability to successfully obtain marketing authorizations to sell our product or product candidates, other than with respect to the marketing authorization granted by the European Commission in August 2014 for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, which is subject to annual review and renewal following reassessment of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization by the EMA and satisfaction of any conditions that may be imposed by the EMA, including the specific obligation to conduct and report the results of Study 041 and our marketing authorizations in Israel and South Korea (which are largely contingent upon continued EMA approval). We have begun seeking and intend to continue to seek marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in territories outside of the EEA. There is substantial risk that regulators in other territories will not agree with our interpretation of the results of ACT DMD and the totality of clinical data from our trials, which would have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue, or may prevent us from generating any revenue, from the sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in those territories.

We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to obtain marketing authorizations for product candidates and expect to continue to rely on third-party contract research organizations to assist us in this process. Securing marketing authorization requires the timely preparation and submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. In response to changes in the regulatory environment or requests from regulators, we may elect, or be obliged, to postpone a regulatory submission to include additional analyses, including those intended to strengthen our submission or facilitate regulator review, which could cause delays in getting our products to market and substantially increase our costs. Securing marketing authorization also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. Regulatory authorities may determine that Translarna or any of our other product candidates are not effective or are only moderately effective, or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities, safety profiles or other characteristics that preclude us from obtaining marketing authorization or that prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining marketing authorizations is expensive, may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing authorization policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing authorization of a product candidate. Any marketing authorization we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable. For example, the marketing authorization granted on a conditional basis by the EMA in the EEA for Translarna is limited to ambulatory nmDMD patients aged five years and older who have been identified through genetic testing and is subject to the specific obligation to conduct Study 041 and annual reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk analysis. Additionally, we are obligated to complete certain post-marketing requirements in connection with the FDA's approval of Emflaza, including pre-clinical and clinical safety studies.

In addition, marketing authorizations in countries outside the United States do not ensure pricing approvals in those countries or in any other countries, and marketing authorizations and pricing approvals do not ensure that reimbursement will be obtained.

We may not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for our products or product candidates in either the United States or the EU If our competitors are able to obtain orphan drug designations for their products in the United States and those products are determined by the FDA to be the “same drug” as our products or product candidate(s) under applicable FDA standards, we may not be able to obtain approval for a significant period of time. Similarly, if our competitors are able to obtain orphan drug designations for their products in the EU and those products can be classified as a “similar medicinal product” within the meaning of EU law, we may not be able to obtain approval by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the European Union and the United States, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. We have obtained orphan drug designations from the EMA and from the FDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, Becker muscular dystrophy (in the EU), and nonsense mutation aniridia. The FDA has also granted an orphan drug designation to RG7916, a compound under development in our SMA collaboration with Roche and the SMA Foundation. In the EU, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing authorization for the indication for which it has received such a designation, the product is entitled to 10 years of market exclusivity, which, subject to certain exceptions, precludes the EMA from accepting another marketing application for a similar medicinal product. The EU exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, including if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. However, in the European Union, generic medicinal products that rely on the independently generated data submitted as part of a full marketing authorization application dossier of an authorized medicinal product, a “reference product”, may not be placed on the market for 10 years from the granting of the initial marketing authorization for the reference product.

In the European Union, a “similar medicinal product” is a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in a currently authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication.

In the United States, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing authorization for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to seven years of market exclusivity which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the “same drug” for the same indication for that time period. For a drug such as Translarna, which is composed of small molecules, the FDA defines “same drug” as a drug that contains the same active moiety and is intended for the same use.

Obtaining orphan drug exclusivity for Translarna for these indications, both in the European Union and in the United States, may be important to the product candidate’s success. If a competitor obtains an orphan drug designation for and approval of a product with orphan drug exclusivity with the same indication as Translarna before we do and if the competitor’s product is the same drug, in the United States or a similar medicinal product, in the EU, as ours, we could be excluded from the market for a period of time. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for Translarna for these indications, we may not be able to maintain it. For example, if a competitive product that is the same drug or a similar medicinal product as Translarna is shown to be “clinically superior” to our product candidate as determined by the FDA, any orphan drug exclusivity we have obtained will not block the approval of such competitive product. In addition, orphan drug exclusivity will not prevent the approval of a product that is the same drug as Translarna if the FDA finds that we cannot assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the needs of the persons with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. The same considerations would apply to any of our orphan product candidates.

The respective orphan designation and exclusivity frameworks in the United States and in the EU are subject to change, and any such changes may affect our ability to obtain, or the impact of obtaining, EU or United States orphan designations in the future.

We rely on non-patent market exclusivity periods under the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Orphan Drug Act to commercialize Emflaza for the approved indication in the United States and failure to maintain either exclusivity period would have a material adverse effect on our ability to commercialize Emflaza, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial statements and results of operations.

As we presently have no patent rights to protect the approved use of Emflaza, we rely on non-patent market exclusivity periods under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, or the Orphan Drug Act, and the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, to commercialize Emflaza in the United States.

As noted in the foregoing risk factor, generally, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing authorization for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of market exclusivity, which, subject to certain exceptions, precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug for the same indication for that time period.

We expect that Emflaza will have a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for the approved orphan indication, which commenced on February 9, 2017 (the date of FDA approval), under the Orphan Drug Act as well as a concurrent five-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for the active ingredient in Emflaza under the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act. The FDA awarded an orphan drug designation to Emflaza for the treatment of patients with DMD and later approved Emflaza as the first corticosteroid approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with DMD, granting Emflaza orphan drug exclusivity for this disease as of the date of approval.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, during the seven-year exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market any drug considered the “same drug” as the drug with the orphan drug exclusivity for the same rare disease or condition, except in limited circumstances, such as if the second applicant demonstrates the clinical superiority of its product to the product with orphan drug exclusivity through a demonstration of superior safety, superior efficacy, or a major contribution to patient care. In addition, if a company seeks orphan drug designation for a drug considered the “same drug” as a drug previously approved for the orphan indication at issue, the FDA will not designate the “same drug” as an orphan drug unless the company articulates a plausible hypothesis of the clinical superiority of its drug to the approved drug, and, following such designation, if the previously approved drug has unexpired orphan drug exclusivity, the FDA will not approve the subsequent drug unless the sponsor demonstrates clinical superiority over the previously approved drug prior to approval. As a result, in the event that a competitive product that is the “same drug” or a similar medicinal product as Emflaza is shown to be “clinically superior” to Emflaza as determined by the FDA, our orphan drug exclusivity will not block the approval of such competitive product. In addition, orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition.

In addition, as the holder of exclusivity, we are required to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of Emflaza to meet the needs of patients and failure to do so could result in loss of orphan exclusivity. Further, each of the Orphan Drug Act and the Hatch-Waxman Act is subject to change, and any such changes may affect our ability to maintain the respective market exclusivity period under those laws. Any reduction or limitation to the marketing exclusivity periods for Emflaza would materially limit our ability to commercialize the product, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial statements and results of operations.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a five-year period of exclusivity is granted to NDAs for products, such as Emflaza, containing chemical entities never previously approved by the FDA either alone or in combination with another drug substance that contains a previously approved active moiety. During the five-year exclusivity period, third parties may not submit certain types of applications to the FDA, except that such applications may be submitted after four years if they contain a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement with respect to any patents of the exclusivity holder covering the drug product. The two types of applications prevented by Hatch-Waxman exclusivity are 505(b)(2) applications and abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs. A 505(b)(2) application allows the FDA to rely for approval of an NDA on data not developed by the applicant such as published literature or the FDA’s finding of safety and effectiveness of a previously approved drug. An ANDA is an application that contains information to show that the proposed product is identical in active ingredient, dosage form, strength, route of administration, labeling, quality, performance characteristics and intended use, among other things to a previously approved application (known as the reference listed drug). ANDAs do not contain clinical studies as required in full NDAs but are required to contain information establishing bioequivalence to the reference listed drug, allowing the FDA to use this bioequivalence information to rely on the prior finding of safety and efficacy for the reference listed drug. Exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act does not prevent the submission, filing and approval of a full NDA containing full reports of

investigations of safety and effectiveness either owned by the applicant or to which the applicant has obtained a right of reference. As a result, it is possible that we will not realize the full period of market exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the seven-year orphan exclusivity period and the five-year exclusivity period for new chemical entities. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if the FDA determines that information relating to the use of the new drug in a pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population and issues a written request to the sponsor for such data, and the sponsor submits pediatric data that meet the conditions of the written request within prescribed time periods. We have received such a request from the FDA and we intend to conduct such studies pending finalization of discussions with the FDA on the nature and objective of the required studies needed to obtain such data. There is no guarantee that we will be able to initiate the necessary study, and to the extent that a study is initiated, there is no guarantee of its completion and submission to the FDA within the required timeframe to be granted pediatric exclusivity or that the FDA would grant the additional six-month pediatric exclusivity period.

All pharmaceutical products for which marketing authorization has been granted, including Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA and Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States, are subject to extensive and rigorous governmental regulation and could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, when and if any of them are approved.

We, Translarna, Emflaza, our product candidates, our operations, our facilities, our suppliers and our contract manufacturers, distributors, and contract testing laboratories are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the EEA, the United States, and other territories, with regulations differing from country to country.

We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the EEA, the United States, or other territories until we have received requisite regulatory approvals. In order to receive and maintain such approvals, we and our third-party service providers must comply on a continuous basis with a broad array of regulations related to establishment registration and product listing, manufacturing processes, risk management measures, quality and pharmacovigilance systems, pre- and post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising and promotional activities, record keeping, distribution, and import and export of pharmaceutical products for any product for which we obtain marketing authorization. Any regulatory approval of any of our products or product candidates, once obtained, may be withdrawn. For example, our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA is subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization, as well as the specific obligation to conduct and report the results of Study 041. After approving a drug, the FDA may withdraw product approval if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if safety problems occur after the product reaches the market. Requirements for additional clinical trials and studies to confirm safety and effectiveness in a broader commercial use population may be imposed as a condition of marketing approval. In addition, the FDA requires surveillance programs to monitor approved products that have been commercialized, and the agency has the power to require changes in labeling or to prevent further marketing of a product based on the results of these post marketing programs. We are obligated to perform certain FDA post-marketing requirements in connection with our marketing authorization for Emflaza in the United States, including pre-clinical and clinical safety studies, and there is no guarantee that the post-marketing trial and studies will not result in changes to Emflaza’s labeling or that they will support the continued approval of Emflaza in the United States. Commencement of the post-marketing trial and studies is pending feedback from the FDA. There is no guarantee that we will be able to complete our post-marketing obligations in accordance with the established timetables. Failure to complete the required studies in accordance with the established timetables or failure to provide the requisite periodic reports on the status of post-marketing studies in the absence of good cause could result in an enforcement action. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing and distribution.

For additional information with respect to the risks related to renewal of our marketing authorization in the EEA, see the foregoing risk factor titled “Our marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD is a “conditional marketing authorization” that requires annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization and is further conditioned upon our ability to satisfy the specific obligation to conduct and report the results of Study 041 by September 2021, and, as such, there is ongoing risk that we may be unable to maintain such authorization. If we are unable to obtain renewal of such marketing authorization in any future renewal cycle, we would lose all, or a significant portion of, our ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna, whether pursuant to a commercial or an EAP program and throughout all territories, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial performance and results of operations.”

We are required to submit safety and other post-market information and reports, implement pharmacovigilance plans, and comply with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, requirements related to manufacturing including, quality control, quality assurance and complaints and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, requirements regarding the

distribution of samples to healthcare professionals and recordkeeping, among other things, in connection with the marketing authorizations for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and for Emflaza for the treatment of DMD described above. Regulatory authorities, including the EMA and local regulatory authorities in EEA member states, subject a marketed product, its manufacturer and the manufacturing facilities to ongoing review and periodic inspections and the EMA is responsible for coordinating inspections, undertaken by the competent authorities of applicable member states, of our manufacturing facilities to assess whether our manufacturing, and other procedures, comply with cGMP. Similar regulatory and inspection requirements apply in other jurisdictions including those imposed by the FDA in the United States. The FDA will typically inspect a manufacturer, including its contract manufacturer organizations and clinical research organizations, following acceptance of an NDA, which can delay FDA approval, especially if unsatisfactory inspection results are observed. If an FDA inspection were to occur and compliance issues at our facilities or at the facilities of our contract manufacturers or research organizations were identified, it could also result in disruption of production or distribution of a product or product candidate, or require substantial resources to correct.

Even if marketing authorization of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or may be subject to significant conditions of approval, including the requirement of risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS. A regulatory authority also may impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. In addition, the competent authorities of each EU member state and the FDA closely regulate the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling and regulatory requirements. Such regulatory authorities can impose stringent restrictions on our communications regarding off-label use and if we do not comply with the laws governing promotion of approved drugs, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label promotion. For example, violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to civil and criminal penalties, investigations alleging violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results which could negatively affect our business, including:

•

restrictions on such products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes;

•

changes to or restrictions on the labeling or marketing of a product;

•

restrictions on product distribution or use;

•

requirements to implement a REMS;

•

requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials;

•

warning or untitled letters;

•

withdrawal of the products from the market;

•

refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit;

•

recall of products;

•

fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues;

•

suspension or withdrawal of marketing authorizations;

•

refusal to permit the import or export of our products;

•

product seizure;

•

injunctions;

•

the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; or

•

debarment.

Non-compliance with regulatory requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, can also result in significant financial penalties. Similarly, failure to comply with regulatory requirements regarding the protection of personal information can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions.

We are also subject to laws and license and registration requirements covering the distribution of marketed products. If we fail to comply with any of these requirements, we may be subject to action by regulatory agencies, which could negatively affect our business. Regulatory agencies may also change existing requirements or adopt new requirements or policies. We may be slow to adapt or may not be able to adapt to these changes or new requirements.

Commercialization of Translarna has been in, and is expected to continue to take place in, countries that tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues. Failure to obtain and maintain acceptable pricing and reimbursement terms for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA and other countries where Translarna is available would delay or prevent us from marketing our product in such regions, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

In some countries, particularly the member states of the EEA, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to strict governmental control. Each country in the EEA has its own pricing and reimbursement regulations and may have other regulations related to the marketing and sale of pharmaceutical products in the country. We generally will not be able to commence commercial sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD pursuant to the conditional marketing authorization granted by the European Commission in any particular member state of the EEA until we conclude the applicable pricing and reimbursement negotiations and comply with any licensing, employment or related regulatory requirements in that country. In some countries we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials or other studies of our product, including trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. We may not be able to conclude pricing and reimbursement negotiations or comply with additional regulatory requirements in the countries in which we seek to commercialize Translarna on a timely basis, or at all.

The pricing and reimbursement process varies from country to country and can take a substantial amount of time from initiation to complete. Pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. We cannot predict the timing of Translarna’s commercial launch in countries where we are awaiting pricing and reimbursement guidelines. While we have submitted pricing and reimbursement dossiers with respect to Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in many EEA countries, we have only received both pricing and reimbursement approval on terms that are acceptable to us in a limited number of countries.

The price that is approved by governmental authorities in any country pursuant to commercial pricing and reimbursement processes may be significantly lower than the price we are able to charge for sales under our reimbursed EAP programs. In some instances, reimbursement may be subject to challenge, reduction or denial by the government and other payors.

For example, in France, EAP and commercial sales of a product can begin while pricing and reimbursement rates are under discussion with the applicable government health programs. In the event that the negotiated price of the product is lower than the amount reimbursed for sales made prior to the conclusion of price negotiations, we may become obligated to repay such excess amount to the applicable government health program. We will make such retroactive reimbursement, if any, following the conclusion of price negotiations with the applicable government health authority.

Further, based on unsustainable economics imposed by the arbitration board in Germany upon the conclusion of an arbitration process in 2016 with us and the German Federal Association of the Statutory Health Insurances, we delisted Translarna from the German pharmacy ordering system, effective April 1, 2016. While some patients and healthcare professionals in Germany have been able to access Translarna through a reimbursed importation pathway possible under German law, there can be no assurance that other patients or healthcare professionals in Germany will be successful doing so or, if initially successful, that any or all will continue to be successful. We were required to reimburse payors in Germany the difference between the commercial price of Translarna and the price established by the arbitration board in Germany for sales made in Germany after December 2015, other than sales made pursuant to the reimbursed importation pathway.

Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing and reimbursement negotiations and there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. For example, these factors influenced the length of our pricing and reimbursement negotiations in England, which took place between mid-2014 to mid-2016, and culminated in a five-year managed access agreement between us, National Health Services England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE, NorthStar clinical network and the patient organizations Muscular Dystrophy UK and Action Duchenne. The managed access agreement establishes the clinical details surrounding the use of Translarna, including the terms and conditions of a confidential financial arrangement and the collection of further data on the efficacy of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD with NICE guidance to be reviewed again at the end of the five-year period, before future funding decisions are taken.

In addition, adverse clinical and regulatory developments may exacerbate these risks, including the developments noted in the foregoing risk factor titled, “ACT DMD did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint, and there is substantial risk that regulators will not agree with our interpretation of the results of ACT DMD and the totality of clinical data from our trials in Translarna

for the treatment of nmDMD, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial performance and results of operations.”

Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices and revenues. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries.

If we fail to successfully secure and maintain pricing and reimbursement coverage for Translarna or are significantly delayed in doing so or if burdensome conditions are imposed by private payers, government authorities or other third-party payors on such reimbursement, planned launches in the affected countries will be delayed and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Our relationships with customers, healthcare providers and professionals, patients, patient organizations, and third-party payors are or will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, transparency and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products or product candidates, including Translarna and Emflaza, for which we have obtained or may obtain marketing approval. Our arrangements with customers, healthcare providers and professionals and third-party payors may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, transparency and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing authorization.

Failure to maintain a comprehensive and effective compliance program, and to integrate the operations of any acquired businesses into a combined comprehensive and effective compliance program on a timely basis, could subject us to a range of regulatory actions that could adversely affect our ability to commercialize our products and could harm or prevent sales of the affected products, or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing and marketing our products.

Restrictions and reporting requirements under applicable U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, and equivalent laws and regulations in the European Union and other countries in which we operate, include, and are not limited to, the following:

•

Anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws and regulations, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, the UK Bribery Act of 2010, or Bribery Act, and similar statutes which have been adopted, or may be adopted in the future, by other countries in which we operate and with which we are or may be required to comply.

•

Anti-kickback laws and regulations, including those applicable in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries where we operate, which generally prohibit, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under government funded healthcare programs. The U.S. federal statute imposes criminal penalties and has been broadly interpreted to apply to manufacturer arrangements with prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers, among others and many states have enacted equivalent state laws that apply not only to government payors but to commercial payors as well.

•

False claim laws and regulations, including the U.S. False Claims Act and similar state laws, which may permit civil whistleblower or qui tam actions and may impose civil liability and criminal penalties on individuals and entities who submit, or cause to be submitted, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the government. Federal enforcement agencies have also showed increased interest in pharmaceutical companies' product and patient assistance programs, including reimbursement and co-pay support services, and a number of investigations into these programs have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements.

•

Laws and regulations related to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information, including the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and similar state laws, which impose obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information, and may impose criminal and civil liability for violations of these obligations. In addition, international data protection laws including the European Union Data Protection Directive, the European General Data Protection Regulation, and member state implementing legislation may apply to some or all of the clinical or other protected data obtained, transmitted, or stored outside of the United

States. Furthermore, certain privacy laws and genetic testing laws may apply directly to our operations and/or those of our collaborators and may impose restrictions on our use and dissemination of individuals’ health information.

HIPAA also imposes criminal and civil liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program and criminal liability for knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

•

Laws and regulations governing the advertising and promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and patients, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. For example, legislation adopted by individual EU member states that may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, as approved by the competent authorities. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. Promotion of indications not covered by the SmPC is specifically prohibited.

•

Laws and regulations regulating off-label promotion of medicinal products, which is prohibited in the European Union. The applicable laws at European Union level and in the individual EU member states also prohibit the direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicinal products. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the European Union could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on our promotional activities with health care professionals.

•

Laws and regulations in the United States, including the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and other laws and regulations, that prohibit us from promoting any of our FDA approved products for off-label uses. This means, for example, that we cannot make claims about the use of our marketed products or their relative benefits compared to other treatments outside of their FDA approved indications and label, and we would not be able to proactively discuss or provide information on off-label uses or safety benefits of such products, with very specific and limited exceptions. Should the FDA determine that our activities constituted the promotion of off-label use, the FDA could bring action to prevent us from distributing those products for the off-label use and could impose fines and penalties on us and our executives, and such a determination could also trigger civil or criminal liability under other applicable laws in the United States.

•

Laws and regulations requiring that we disclose publicly payments made to physicians, including in certain EU member states and the United States. For example, in the United States, under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requirements, manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies must report information related to payments and other transfers of value made to or at the request of covered recipients, such as physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as physician ownership and investment interests in such manufacturers. A number of U.S. states and other countries have enacted their own transparency requirements that obligate manufacturers to report different types of spending related to physicians, certain hospitals, and other covered recipients.

In addition, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians are also governed by industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct. In the United States, some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with these industry and physician codes and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national laws of the EU member states, as well as codes of conduct issued by self-regulatory industry bodies. Moreover, agreements with physicians must often be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, their competent professional organization, and the competent authorities of the individual EU member states. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU member states.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws, regulations, transparency requirements and self-regulatory codes have and will continue to involve substantial costs. We cannot guarantee that we, our employees, our consultants, our third-party contractors, or the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business, are or will be in compliance with all federal, state and foreign regulations and codes. It is possible that governmental authorities could conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Exclusion, suspension and debarment from government funded healthcare programs would adversely affect, perhaps materially, our ability

to commercialize, sell or distribute any drug. Even if we were not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could also have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Legislative and regulatory changes affecting the pharmaceutical industry or the healthcare system more broadly may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain or maintain marketing authorization of and commercialize our products and product candidates and affect the coverage and reimbursement we may obtain.

Our industry is highly regulated and changes in law may adversely impact our business, operations, or financial results. In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing authorization of Translarna or any of our other product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any products or product candidates, including Translarna and Emflaza, for which we have obtained, or may obtain, marketing authorization.

Certain provisions of enacted or proposed legislative changes may negatively impact coverage and reimbursement of healthcare items and services. For example, in the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or Medicare Modernization Act, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and reimbursement that we receive for any approved products, or allow for the importation of lower-priced versions of our approved products from Canada. While the Medicare Modernization Act applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own policies. Therefore, any restrictions to coverage or reductions in reimbursement that result from the Medicare Modernization Act may result in a similar coverage restriction or reimbursement reduction from private payors. In addition, private payors may implement coverage restrictions or payment reductions independently from federal programs such as Medicare.

Similarly, in the United States, the Affordable Care Act contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products. However, the current Presidential Administration and U.S. Congress have expressed a desire to modify, repeal or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the Affordable Care Act, which has contributed to the uncertainty of the ongoing implementation and impact of the Affordable Care Act and also underscores the potential for additional reform going forward. We cannot assure that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as amended in the future, will not adversely affect our business and financial results.

We anticipate that the U.S. Congress, state legislatures and the private sector will continue to consider and may adopt healthcare policies intended to curb rising healthcare costs. These cost containment measures may include:

•controls on government funded reimbursement for drugs;

•caps on mandatory discounts under certain government sponsored programs;

•controls on healthcare providers;

•challenges to the pricing of drugs or limits on prohibitions on reimbursement or specific products through other means;

•reform of drug importation laws;

•expansion of use of managed care systems in which the healthcare providers contract to provide comprehensive healthcare for a fixed cost per person; and

We are unable to predict what additional legislation, regulations or policies, if any, relating to the healthcare industry or third-party coverage and reimbursement may be enacted in the future or what effect such legislation, regulations or policies would have on our business. Any cost containment measures, including those listed above, or other healthcare system reforms that are adopted, could significantly decrease the available coverage and the price we might establish for our products, which would have an adverse effect on our net revenues and operating results.

In the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize Translarna and our product candidates. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the European Union or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. We cannot predict how future changes relating to healthcare reform in the European Union, the United States, or other territories, will affect our business.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have also been made to expand post-approval requirements, limit regulatory exclusivity periods or the applicability of such exclusivity periods, and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted in any territory in which we are authorized, or become authorized, to market Translarna, Emflaza, or any of our other product candidates, or whether applicable regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing authorizations of our products or product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process or by comparable foreign bodies overseeing regulatory authorities in other territories may significantly delay or prevent marketing authorization, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements. We cannot predict how future changes relating to pre- and post-marketing approval and requirements will affect our business.

Risks Related to our Dependence on Third Parties

We contract with third parties for the manufacture and distribution of our products and our product candidates, which may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our products or product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our commercialization or development efforts.

We do not own or operate manufacturing or distribution facilities for the production or distribution of clinical or commercial supplies of our products or product candidates. We have limited personnel with experience in drug manufacturing and lack the resources and the capabilities to manufacture any of our products or product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. We currently rely on third parties for supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used in Translarna, Emflaza and all of our product candidates. We outsource all manufacturing, packaging, labeling and distribution of our products and product candidates to third parties, including our commercial supply of Translarna and Emflaza.

We do not directly control the manufacturing of our products and product candidates, and we are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturers for compliance with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, or good distribution practice, or GDP, or similar regulatory requirements outside the European Union and the United States for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the EMA, FDA, or other foreign regulatory agencies, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no direct control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. Furthermore, all of our contract manufacturers are engaged with other companies to supply and/or manufacture materials or products for such companies, which exposes our manufacturers to regulatory risks for the production of such other materials and products. As a result, failure to meet the regulatory requirements for the production of those materials and products may generally affect the regulatory clearance of our contract manufacturers’ facilities. If the EMA, FDA, or a comparable foreign regulatory agency does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws its approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would negatively impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our products or product candidates, if approved.

We currently rely on a single source for the production of some of our raw materials and we obtain our supply of the drug substance for Translarna from two third-party manufacturers and the drug substance for our oncology program through another third-party manufacturer. We engage two separate manufacturers to provide bulk drug product for Translarna. We have a relationship with three manufacturers that are capable of providing fill and finish services for our finished commercial and clinical Translarna product, although we are still in the process of finalizing arrangements with one of these manufacturers with respect to commercial product services.

We do not currently have any agreements with third-party manufacturers for the long-term commercial supply of Translarna or any of our product candidates, although we may seek to establish such arrangements in the future. In the event that we are unable to procure supply from a validated manufacturer, we would seek to identify and qualify replacement suppliers, however this process would likely delay our ability to supply Translarna to patients or advance our clinical trials. We may be unable to conclude agreements for commercial or clinical supply of Translarna with third-party manufacturers, or we may be unable to do so on acceptable terms.

We currently have a contract with a pharmacy and hospital distributor in the European Union that distributes Translarna for clinical programs and limited commercial and EAP programs. We have engaged with third-party logistic providers, or 3PLs, which distribute Translarna for the majority of our commercial and EAP programs on our behalf. We intend to engage additional distributors if and when, if ever, we become authorized to make Translarna available for purchase in such additional geographies.

We obtain our supply of the drug substance for Emflaza through a third-party manufacturer that is currently the only third-party manufacturer qualified to provide Emflaza drug substance. All of our drug product manufacturing, processing and packaging

needs for Emflaza tablet and suspension product are fulfilled through two different exclusive supply agreements that we assumed in connection with our acquisition of Emflaza. We expect to fulfill all of our requirements for Emflaza tablets as well as secondary packaging of pre-filled Emflaza oral suspension bottles pursuant to one of these agreements, which has an initial term of five years. We expect to fulfill all of our requirements for Emflaza suspension product pursuant to the other agreement. Through the seventh year anniversary of FDA approval of Emflaza, we are obligated to pay to the manufacturer of the Emflaza suspension product royalty payments, on a quarterly basis, based on a percentage (ranging from low to middle-low double digits) of, or a fixed payment with respect to, our annual net sales of suspension product in the United States, subject to reduction in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The royalty payments for the suspension product are subject to a minimum aggregate annual payment ranging from €0.5 million to €1.5 million per year.

If our drug substance provider or either of our drug product manufacturers becomes unable to provide drug substance or manufacture Emflaza product in sufficient quantities to meet projected demand, future sales could be adversely affected, which in turn could have a detrimental impact on our ability to maintain our marketing authorization in the United States and on our ability to commercialize Emflaza, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial results and results of operations. Further, as we presently have no patent rights to protect the approved use of Emflaza, we expect to rely upon market exclusivity periods available to us under the Orphan Drug Act and Hatch-Waxman Act to commercialize Emflaza for DMD in the United States. As the holder of orphan exclusivity, we are required to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of Emflaza to meet the needs of patients. Failure to do so could result in loss of the drug's orphan exclusivity in the United States, which would have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue from sales of Emflaza.

We utilize third parties for the commercial distribution of Emflaza, including a 3PL to warehouse Emflaza as well as a specialty pharmacy to sell and distribute Emflaza to patients. The specialty pharmacy provides us with third-party call center services to provide patient support and financial services, prescription intake and distribution, reimbursement adjudication, and ongoing compliance support. If we are unable to effectively manage this distribution process, the continuance of our commercial launch and sales of Emflaza may be delayed or compromised.

Even if we are able to establish and maintain arrangements with third-party manufacturers and distributors, reliance on such service providers as well as the use of specialty pharmacies and a call center entails additional risks, including:

•

reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance;

•

the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party;

•

the possible misappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how;

•

the possibility of commercial supplies of Translarna or Emflaza not being distributed to commercial vendors or end users in a timely manner, resulting in lost sales;

•

the possibility of clinical supplies not being delivered to clinical sites on time, leading to clinical trial interruptions;

•

the possibility of third-party resources not being devoted in the manner necessary to satisfy our requirements within the expected time frame;

•

the possibility of third parties not providing us with accurate or timely information regarding their inventories, the number of patients who are using Emflaza, or serious adverse events and/or product complaints regarding Emflaza;

•

the possibility of third parties being unable to satisfy their financial obligations to us or to others; and

•

the possible termination or nonrenewal of a critical agreement by the third party at a time that is costly or inconvenient to us.

Many additional factors could cause production or distribution interruptions with the manufacture and distribution of Translarna or Emflaza and any of our product candidates, including human error, natural disasters, labor disputes, acts of terrorism or war, equipment malfunctions, contamination, or raw material shortages.

In addition, third-party manufacturers or distributors may not be able to comply with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, or good distribution practice, or GDP, or similar regulatory requirements outside the European Union and the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers or distributors, over whom we have no direct control, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or product, operating restrictions, criminal prosecutions or debarment, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of Translarna, Emflaza or our product candidates and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Our products and our product candidates and any other products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. In addition, changes in cGMP regulations could negatively impact the ability of our contract manufacturers to complete the manufacturing process of our products and our product candidates in a compliant manner on the schedule we require for commercial and clinical trial use, respectively.

If the third parties that we engage to manufacture product for our commercial sales, preclinical tests and clinical trials should, prior to the time that we have validated alternative providers, cease to continue to do so for any reason, we likely would experience delays in our ability to supply Translarna or Emflaza to patients or in our ability to advance our clinical trials while we identify and qualify replacement suppliers and we may be unable to obtain replacement supplies on terms that are favorable to us. In addition, if we are not able to obtain adequate supplies of Translarna, Emflaza or our product candidates or the drug substances used to manufacture them, we will lose commercial sales revenue and it will be more difficult for us to develop our product candidates and compete effectively.

Third parties might illegally distribute and sell counterfeit or unfit versions of our products that do not meet our rigorous manufacturing and testing standards. A patient who receives a counterfeit or unfit drug may be at risk for a number of dangerous health consequences. Our reputation and business could suffer harm as a result of counterfeit or unfit drugs sold under our brand name. In addition, thefts of inventory at warehouses, plants or while in-transit, which are not properly stored and which are sold through unauthorized channels, could adversely impact patient safety, our reputation and our business.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture and distribution of Translarna, Emflaza and our product candidates may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and limit our ability to grow including our ability to develop product candidates and commercialize our products that receive regulatory approval on a timely and competitive basis.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials.

We do not independently conduct clinical trials for our products or product candidates. We rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to perform this function. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it would delay our product development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties for clinical development activities reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practices, or GCP, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions. Similar GCP and transparency requirements apply in the European Union. Failure to comply with such requirements, including with respect to clinical trials conducted outside the European Union and United States, can also lead regulatory authorities to refuse to take into account clinical trial data submitted as part of a marketing application.

For example, in the first half of 2013 inspectors acting at the request of the EMA conducted GCP inspections of selected clinical sites from our completed Phase 2b clinical trial of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and our clinical trial site relating to our then pending marketing authorization application for approval of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. Following these inspections, we received inspection reports containing a combination of critical and major findings. These findings related to waivers we granted to admit patients to our Phase 2b clinical trial of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in advance of formal approval of protocol amendments that would have established their eligibility for the trial, as well as our oversight of our trial sites and the completeness or sufficiency of clinical trial documentation. In response to these findings, we described to the EMA the enhanced internal procedures and controls we have implemented, and the internal quality assurance department we have established, since the conclusion of our Phase 2b clinical trial of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. In addition, we proposed corrective action plans to address the inspectors’ specific findings. If we do not meet our commitment to the corrective actions we proposed to the EMA, we may face additional consequences, including rejection of data or other direct action by national regulatory authorities, which could require us to conduct additional clinical trials or other supportive studies to maintain our marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD or to obtain full approval from the EMA.

Furthermore, third parties that we rely on for our clinical development activities may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing authorizations for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates. Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in testing or obtaining marketing authorizations.

We also rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing authorizations of our products or product candidates or commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

We currently depend, and expect to continue to depend, on collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of some of our product candidates. If those collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these product candidates.

For each of our product candidates, we plan to evaluate the merits of retaining commercialization rights for ourselves or entering into selective collaboration arrangements with leading pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, such as our collaborations with Roche and the SMA Foundation, for our spinal muscular atrophy program. We have entered into arrangements with certain third parties to market or distribute Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in certain countries and, as we continue to implement our commercialization plans for Translarna, we anticipate that we will engage additional third parties to perform these functions for us in other countries. We generally plan to seek collaborators for the development and commercialization of product candidates that have high anticipated development costs, are directed at indications for which a potential collaborator has a particular expertise, or involve markets that require a large sales and marketing organization to serve effectively. Our likely collaborators for any marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements may include: large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and/or biotechnology companies.

We will have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ desire and ability to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. In particular, the successful development of a product candidate from our spinal muscular atrophy program will depend on the success of our collaborations with the SMA Foundation and Roche, including whether Roche continues clinical development of the current clinical candidate or pursues clinical development of any other compounds identified under the collaborations.

Collaborations involving our product candidates, including our collaborations with the SMA Foundation and Roche, pose the following risks to us:

•

collaborators have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations;

•

collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of our product candidates or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs, based on clinical trial results, changes in the collaborators’ strategic focus or available funding, or external factors such as an acquisition that diverts resources or creates competing priorities;

•

collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing;

•

collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that replace or compete directly or indirectly with our products or product candidates if the collaborators believe that competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours;

•

a collaborator with marketing and distribution rights to one or more products may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of such product or products;

•

collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation;

•

collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability;

disputes may arise between the collaborator and us as to the ownership of intellectual property arising during the collaboration;

•

we may grant exclusive rights for our products or product candidates to our collaborators, which would prevent us from collaborating with others, or from using our products or product candidates ourselves;

•

disputes may arise between the collaborators and us that result in the delay or termination of the collaboration, which may include ending research, development or commercialization activities for our products or product candidates or that result in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources; and

•

collaborations may be terminated and, if terminated, may result in a need for additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates.

Collaborators have terminated collaborations with us in the past. For example, in 2008, we entered into a collaboration with Genzyme Corporation for the development and commercialization of Translarna under which we granted to Genzyme rights to commercialize Translarna in all countries other than the United States and Canada. In 2011, we restructured the collaboration and regained worldwide rights to Translarna, with Genzyme obtaining an option to commercialize Translarna in indications other than nmDMD outside the United States and Canada. In 2012, this option expired without being exercised by Genzyme and the collaboration terminated.

Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner or at all. If a collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, the continued pursuit and emphasis on our product development or commercialization program could be delayed, diminished or terminated.

If we are not able to establish additional collaborations, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

Our product development programs and the potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. For some of our product candidates, we may decide to collaborate further with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborators’ resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborators’ evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by regulatory authorities, intellectual property rights, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge; and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. We may also be restricted under future license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in our intellectual property licenses and funding arrangements with third parties, we could lose rights that are important to our business.

We are a party to a number of license agreements and expect to enter into additional licenses in the future. Our existing licenses impose, and we expect that future licenses will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we might not be able to market any product that is covered by these agreements, which could materially adversely affect the value of the product candidate being developed under such license agreement. Termination of these license agreements or

reduction or elimination of our licensed rights may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated licenses with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose rights in important intellectual property or technology.

We have also received grant funding for some of our development programs from philanthropic organizations and patient advocacy groups pursuant to agreements that impose development and commercialization diligence obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, the applicable organization could require us to grant to the organization exclusive rights under certain of our intellectual property, which could materially adversely affect the value to us of product candidates covered by that intellectual property even if we are entitled to a share of any consideration received by such organization in connection with any subsequent development or commercialization of the product candidates.

Some of our patented technology was developed with U.S. federal government funding. When new technologies are developed with U.S. government funding, the government obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a nonexclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention for non-commercial purposes. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise “march-in” rights to use or allow third parties to use our patented technology. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the U.S. government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, U.S. government-funded inventions must be reported to the government and U.S. government funding must be disclosed in any resulting patent applications. Furthermore, our rights in such inventions are subject to government license rights and certain restrictions on manufacturing products outside the United States.

Risks Related to our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, or if the scope of the patent protection is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be adversely affected.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection or other intellectual property rights in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. One primary way that we seek to protect our proprietary position is by filing patent applications in the United States and in certain foreign jurisdictions related to our novel technologies, product and product candidates that are important to our business. This process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, if we license technology or product candidates from third parties in the future, these license agreements may not permit us to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain or enforce the patents, covering this intellectual property. These agreements could also give our licensors the right to enforce the licensed patents without our involvement, or to decide not to enforce the patents at all. Therefore, in these circumstances, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, patent law in many countries restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than U.S. law does. In addition, we may not pursue or obtain or be able to pursue or obtain patent protection in all major markets. Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, currently, the first to file a patent application is generally entitled to the patent. However, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, the first to invent was entitled to the patent. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. In addition, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (the “Act”), which reformed certain patent laws in the U.S., may create additional uncertainty. The significant changes engendered by the Act include switching from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, and the implementation of new procedures that permit competitors to challenge our patents in the USPTO after grant, including inter partes review and post grant review.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third party anonymously submitting prior art to a patent office or may become involved in addressing patentability objections based on third-party submission of references, or may become involved in oppositions, derivation proceedings, reexamination, inter partes review, post grant review, interference proceedings or other patent office proceedings or litigation, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize our product or current or future product candidates.

Even if our patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. In addition, other companies may attempt to circumvent any regulatory data protection or market exclusivity that we obtain under applicable legislation, which may require us to allocate significant resources to preventing such circumvention. Legal and regulatory developments in the European Union and elsewhere may also result in clinical trial data and other information, that would ordinarily be treated as trade secret, submitted as part of a marketing authorization application becoming publicly available. The EMA Policy on publication of clinical data and other such information, as well as the current application of European Union freedom of information regulations, could impact our proprietary information (comprising both clinical and non-clinical data and other information) that would normally be maintained by a regulatory body as commercially confidential. Such developments could enable other companies to circumvent our intellectual property rights and use our clinical trial data or other information to obtain marketing authorizations in the European Union and in other jurisdictions. Such developments may also require us to allocate significant resources or engage in litigation to prevent other companies from circumventing or violating our intellectual property rights. Our attempts to prevent third parties from circumventing our intellectual property and other rights may ultimately be unsuccessful. We may also fail to take the required actions or pay the necessary fees to maintain our patents.

For example, during 2015, we were notified by the EMA that it had received from another pharmaceutical company a request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 seeking access to aspects of our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. Following the decision of the EMA to release such documentation with only minimal redactions we initiated litigation before the General Court of the European Union to prevent disclosure of this information. In the first quarter of 2018, the Court ruled in favor of the EMA, allowing the EMA to release the documentation. We have appealed the General Court’s decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union and the EMA has confirmed that it will not release the documents while the matter is still subject to the appeal process. However, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in the appeal and we may not ultimately succeed in preventing disclosure of the data in our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD.

An issued patent may be challenged as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged on such a basis in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file a lawsuit and claims for damages, which can be expensive and time consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property or defenses, such that they do not infringe our intellectual property or that our intellectual property is invalid or unenforceable. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that our patents are invalid and unenforceable or that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our products and our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products and technology, including interference or derivation proceeding, inter partes review or post-grant review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The risks of being involved in such litigation and proceedings may also increase as our product candidates are disclosed while approaching commercialization, and as we gain greater visibility as a public company. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights. We may not be aware of all such intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product and our product candidates. Since patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, with new publications occurring continuously, there may be patents or patent applications relating to our product or our product candidates that we are unaware of. There may also be pending or future patent applications that, if issued, would block us from commercializing Translarna or Emflaza. Thus, we do not know with certainty whether Translarna, Emflaza, or any of our other product candidates, or our commercialization thereof, would or would not infringe any third party’s intellectual property.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, or in order to avoid or settle litigation, we could be required to obtain a license to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us, and could require us to make substantial payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing an alleged infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorney’s fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product or our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

For example, it is possible that one or more third parties might bring a patent infringement or other legal proceeding against us regarding Translarna or Emflaza. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any issued U.S. patent that may allegedly include ataluren within the scope of a granted claim, we would need to overcome that patent’s presumption of validity in district court or prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence before the USPTO. There is no assurance that a court or the USPTO would find these claims to be invalid or unpatentable, respectively. In addition, we believe that the public notice given by our testing of ataluren in clinical trials for the purpose of seeking FDA approval would be a valid defense against any infringement claims in the United States based on the availability of any statutory research exemptions. However, there can be no assurance that our interpretation of the exemption would be upheld, were the exemption interpreted as covering only our preclinical research activities, and not the commercialization of ataluren.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that we or our employees have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

In addition, while we typically require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and could distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition,

there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development, sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Certain of the products we market have no or limited patent protection and, as a result, potential competitors face fewer regulatory barriers in introducing competing products. Without patent protection or other regulatory exclusivity, we may not be able to exclude others from, among other things, selling or importing similar products in any jurisdiction. In some instances, we may rely on trade secrets and other unpatented proprietary information to protect our commercial position with respect to such products, although we may be unable to provide adequate protection for our commercial position via these means. In other instances, we may need to rely on regulatory exclusivity to protect our commercial position.

Furthermore, generic competition against a branded product often results in decreases in the prices at which the branded product can be sold, particularly when there is more than one generic product available in the marketplace. Third-party companies could also develop products that are similar, but not identical, to our marketed products, such as an alternative formulation of our product or an alternative formulation combined with a different delivery technology, and seek approval in the United States by referencing our products and relying, to some degree, on the FDA’s finding that our products are safe and effective in their approved indications. In addition, legislation enacted in the United States allows for, and in a few instances, in the absence of specific instructions from the prescribing physician, mandates the dispensing of generic products rather than branded products where a generic version is available.

On February 9, 2017, the FDA approved the corticosteroid Emflaza (deflazacort) for the treatment of patients 5 years and older with DMD. Although approved for other indications outside of the United States, this was the first approval for deflazacort in the United States and the first approval in the United States for the use of a corticosteroid to treat DMD.

We rely on regulatory exclusivity for Emflaza and currently have no issued patents that could prevent a third-party company from seeking to introduce a generic Emflaza formulation in the United States for the treatment of DMD or another indication, and we may never be able to obtain such patent protection. Such third-party companies may also obtain patents covering a new deflazacort formulation or method of use, and attempt to assert such patents against us.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents and regulatory exclusivity for some of our technology and products, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. More particularly, we may rely on trade secrets and other unpatented proprietary information to protect our competitive position related to Translarna and Emflaza, especially when we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors, partners and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. However, we cannot guarantee that we have executed these agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or that the agreements we have executed will provide adequate protection. Any party with whom we have executed such an agreement may breach that agreement and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be obtained or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed. If our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, employees, consultants, advisors, partners and other third parties develop new inventions or processes related to Translarna or Emflaza independently, or jointly with us, that may be applicable to our products under development, disputes may arise about ownership or proprietary rights to those inventions and processes. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using any of our inventions or trade secrets is expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside of the United States are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.

We have not yet registered our trademarks in all of our potential markets, and failure to secure those registrations could adversely affect our business.

Our trademark applications may be refused registration, and our registered trademarks may not be maintained or may be found to be unenforceable. During trademark examination proceedings, our trademark applications may be rejected. Although we are given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may not be able to overcome them. In addition, in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Trademark Offices in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications or to seek cancellation of registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. In addition, if we do not secure registrations for our trademarks, we may encounter difficulty enforcing our trademark rights against third parties in the jurisdictions where we do not have registered rights.

If we are not able to obtain adequate trademark protection or regulatory approval for our brand names, including Translarna and Emflaza, we may be required to re-brand affected products, which could cause delays in getting such products to market and substantially increase our costs.

To protect our rights in any trademark we intend to use for our products or our product candidates, including Translarna and Emflaza, we may seek to register such trademarks. Trademark registration is territory-specific and we must apply for trademark registration in the United States as well as any other country where we intend to commercialize our product or product candidates. Failure to obtain trademark registrations may place our use of the trademarks at risk or make them subject to legal challenges, which could force us to choose alternative names for our product or product candidates. In addition, the FDA, and other regulatory authorities outside the United States, conduct an independent review of proposed product names for pharmaceuticals, including an evaluation of the potential for confusion with other pharmaceutical product names for medications, which could result in medication errors in prescribing, dispensing and consumption. These regulatory authorities may also object to a proposed product name if they believe the name inappropriately makes or implies a therapeutic claim. If the FDA or other regulatory authorities outside the United States object to any of our proposed product names, we may be required to adopt alternative names for our product or product candidates. If we adopt alternative names, either because of our inability to obtain a trademark registration or because of objections from regulatory authorities, we would lose the benefit of our existing trademark applications and the rights attached thereto. Consequently, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to adopt a new product name that would be registrable under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA and other regulatory authorities, which could cause delays in getting our products to market and substantially increase our costs. Furthermore, we may not be able to build a successful brand identity for a new trademark in a timely manner or at all, which would limit our ability to commercialize our product or our product candidates.

We are highly dependent on Dr. Stuart W. Peltz, our co-founder and Chief Executive Officer, and the other principal members of our executive and scientific teams. Although we have formal employment agreements with each of our executive officers, these agreements do not prevent our executives from terminating their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance on any of our executive officers. The loss of the services of any of these persons might impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. We may not be able to attract and retain these personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

We are in the process of expanding our development, regulatory, and sales and marketing capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

In connection with our commercialization plans and business strategy, including our commercial launch of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and our integration of and commercialization efforts related to Emflaza, we have experienced and may to continue to experience significant growth in our employee base for sales, marketing, operational, managerial, financial, human resources, drug development, quality, regulatory and medical affairs and other areas. This growth has imposed and will

continue to impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to recruit, hire, retain, motivate and integrate additional employees, including employees who joined us in connection with our acquisition of Emflaza. Also, our management may have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities, including the integration of Emflaza. To manage our recent and anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. In addition, we may need to adjust the size of our workforce as a result of changes to our expectations for our business, which can result in diversion of management attention, disruptions to our business, and related expenses. For example, following our receipt of the Refuse to File letter from the FDA in 2016, we implemented a reorganization of our operations in March 2016 that resulted in a one-time charge for the related work-force reduction. The physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Risks Related to our Common Stock

Servicing the Convertible Notes will require a significant amount of cash. We may not have sufficient cash flow from our business to make payments on our debt, and we may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to settle conversions of, or to repurchase, the Convertible Notes upon a fundamental change, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In August 2015, we incurred indebtedness in the amount of $150.0 million in aggregate principal with additional accrued interest under the Convertible Notes, for which interest is payable semi-annually in arrears on February 15 and August 15 of each year, beginning on February 15, 2016. Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on or to refinance the Convertible Notes depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our debt, including the Convertible Notes. If we are unable to generate cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity capital on terms that may be unfavorable to us or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at the time we seek to refinance such indebtedness. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations.

In addition, upon conversion of the Convertible Notes unless we elect to deliver solely shares of our common stock to settle such conversion (other than paying cash in lieu of delivering any fractional shares), we will be required to make cash payments in respect of the Convertible Notes being converted. However, we may not have enough available cash or be able to obtain financing at the time we are required to repurchase Convertible Notes, to pay the Convertible Notes at maturity or to pay cash upon conversions of Convertible Notes. In addition, our ability to repurchase Convertible Notes or to pay cash upon conversions of Convertible Notes may be limited by law, by regulatory authority or by agreements governing our future indebtedness. Our failure to repurchase Convertible Notes at a time when the repurchase is required by the indenture, to make interest payments on the Convertible Notes when due under the indenture or to pay any cash payable on future conversions of the Convertible Notes as required by the indenture would constitute a default under the indenture. An event of default under the indenture governing the Convertible Notes or the fundamental change itself could also lead to a default under agreements governing our future indebtedness. If the repayment of any such related indebtedness were to be accelerated after any applicable notice or grace periods, we may not have sufficient funds to repay the indebtedness, repurchase the Convertible Notes, make interest payments on the Convertible Notes or make cash payments upon conversions of the Convertible Notes.

In addition, even if holders of the Convertible Notes do not elect to convert their Convertible Notes, we could be required under applicable accounting rules to reclassify all or a portion of the outstanding principal of the Convertible Notes as a current rather than long-term liability, which would result in a material reduction of our net working capital. Any of these factors could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our corporate charter and our bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which our stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our

board of directors is responsible for appointing our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

•

provide for a classified board of directors such that not all members of the board are elected at one time;

•

allow the authorized number of our directors to be changed only by resolution of our board of directors;

•

limit the manner in which stockholders can remove directors from the board;

•

establish advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals that can be acted on at stockholder meetings and nominations to our board of directors;

•

require that stockholder actions must be effected at a duly called stockholder meeting and prohibit actions by our stockholders by written consent;

•

limit who may call stockholder meetings;

•

authorize our board of directors to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval, which could be used to institute a “poison pill” that would work to dilute the stock ownership of a potential hostile acquirer, effectively preventing acquisitions that have not been approved by our board of directors; and

•

require the approval of the holders of at least 75% of the votes that all our stockholders would be entitled to cast to amend or repeal certain provisions of our charter or bylaws.

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

The price of our common stock may be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for purchasers of our common stock and lawsuits against us and our officers and directors.

Our stock price has been and will likely continue to be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for smaller pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, our stockholders may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the price at which they purchased it. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

•

any developments related to our ability or inability to execute our strategy for Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States, in particular with respect to our commercialization efforts;

•

any developments related to our ability or inability to advance Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States in a timely manner or at all, whether pursuant to the formal dispute resolution request process with the FDA, or otherwise, and including whether we will be required to complete any additional clinical trials, non-clinical studies or CMC assessments or analyses;

•

our ability to maintain our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA, which is subject to the specific obligation to conduct Study 041 and is also subject to annual review and renewal by the European Commission following reassessment of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization by the EMA;

•

any developments related to Study 041, including with respect to design, timing, conduct, and enrollment, and developments with respect to any clinical or non-clinical trial that may be required by other regulatory agencies, including the FDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD;

•

results of clinical trials of Translarna and any other product candidate that we develop;

the level of expenses related to any of our products, product candidates or clinical development programs;

•

actual or anticipated changes in estimates as to financial results, development timelines or recommendations by securities analysts;

•

variations in our financial results or those of companies that are perceived to be similar to us;

•

changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems;

•

market conditions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors;

•

general economic, industry and market conditions; and

•

the other factors described in this “Risk Factors” section.

Companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have frequently been the subject of securities class action and shareholder derivative litigation. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information concerning a securities class action lawsuit initiated against us and certain of our current and former executive officers during the first quarter of 2016 and derivative lawsuits brought against us, as a nominal defendant, certain of our current and former executive officers and certain of our current and former directors during the third quarter of 2017. In addition, we could be the target of other such litigation in the future. Class action and derivative lawsuits, whether successful or not, could result in substantial costs, damage or settlement awards and a diversion of our management’s resources and attention from running our business, which could materially harm our reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

We are currently incurring and expect to continue to incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, including compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and our management is and will continue to be required to devote substantial time to compliance initiatives. In addition, the failure to establish and maintain adequate finance infrastructure and accounting systems and controls could impair our ability to comply with the financial reporting and internal controls requirements for publicly traded companies.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Global Select Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel have and will need to continue to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations have and will continue to increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will continue to make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, these rules and regulations have made it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. Compliance with Section 404, including documentation and evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting, is both costly and challenging. If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner each year, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Nasdaq Stock Market or other regulatory authorities which would require additional financial and management resources and could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, if we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our business and results of operations could be harmed and investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be our stockholders sole source of gain.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the development and growth of our business. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be our stockholders sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market by our existing stockholders could significantly reduce the market price of our common stock.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock.

We have issued a significant number of equity awards under our equity compensation plans or as inducement grants to new hire employees pursuant to Nasdaq rules. The shares underlying these awards are or, with respect to certain option grants, will be registered on a Form S-8 registration statement. As a result, upon vesting these shares can be freely exercised and sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates. The exercise of options and the subsequent sale of the underlying common stock or the sale of restricted stock upon vesting could cause a decline in our stock price. These sales also might make it difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate.

Certain of our employees, executive officers and directors have entered or may enter into Rule 10b5-1 plans providing for sales of shares of our common stock from time to time. Under a Rule 10b5-1 plan, a broker executes trades pursuant to parameters established by the employee, director or officer when entering into the plan, without further direction from the employee, officer or director. A Rule 10b5-1 plan may be amended or terminated in some circumstances. Our employees, executive officers and directors may also buy or sell additional shares outside of a Rule 10b5-1 plan when they are not in possession of material, nonpublic information.

In connection with our acquisition of Emflaza, we issued an affiliate of Marathon 6,683,598 shares of our common stock. While these shares are currently restricted as a result of securities laws, following expiration of applicable holding periods, the shares will be able to be freely sold in the public market subject to any requirements and restrictions, including any applicable volume limitations, imposed by Rule 144 under the Securities Act. The sale or resale of these shares in the public market, or the market’s expectation of such sales, may result in an immediate and substantial decline in our stock price. Such a decline will adversely affect our investors and also might make it difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2. Properties

Our principal facilities consist of approximately 90,000 square feet of research and office space located at 100, 200 and 250 Corporate Court, Middlesex Business Center, South Plainfield, New Jersey, that we occupy under a lease that expires in 2019, with two consecutive five-year renewal options to renew the lease after 2019. We lease approximately 6,500 square feet of office space in Dublin, Ireland, that we occupy under a lease that expires in 2024. Additionally, we lease approximately 5,000 square feet of office space in Sao Paulo, Brazil, that we occupy under a lease that expires in 2023. We also lease office space in other countries to support our operations as a global organization, but these leases are not material to us.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

In March 2016, three purported securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (one each on March 3, 10, and 11), naming as defendants the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, and our former Chief Financial Officer. The lawsuits have been consolidated into one action captioned In re PTC Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-1224 (KM) (the “Securities Class Action”). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 13, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company about its business, operations, and prospects as it relates to the NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD that the Company submitted to the FDA in December 2015. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages for purchasers of the Company’s common stock between November 6, 2014 and February 23, 2016, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 14, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On August 28, 2017, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. On September 25, 2017, defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the

consolidated amended complaint. On January 10, 2018, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle of all legal claims, subject to court approval, which will be funded by the Company’s insurance subject to the applicable deductible.

On September 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against our Chief Executive Officer, our former Chief Financial Officer, and current or former directors (Michael Schmertzler; Richard Aldrich; Allan Jacobson; Adam Koppel; Michael Kranda; C. Geoffrey McDonough; Ronald C. Renaud, Jr.; David P. Southwell; Jerome Zeldis; and Glenn D. Steele, Jr.), with the caption Choi v. Peltz, et al.,No. 17-cv-07216. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. On October 10, 2017, another purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the same defendants and nominal defendant, with the caption Kim v. Peltz, et al., No. 17-cv-08062. The Choi and Kim actions have been consolidated and captioned In re PTC Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 17-cv-07216 (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On January 17, 2018, a third purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the same defendants and nominal defendant, with the caption Lee v. Peltz, et al., No. 2:18-cv-00730 (together with the Consolidated Derivative Action, the “Derivative Actions”).The Derivative Actions allege violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breaches of defendants’ fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement based on allegations that defendants made or approved improper statements regarding the NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD that the Company submitted to the FDA in December 2015. The Derivative Actions seek, among other things, any damages sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants’ alleged wrongdoing (including fees associated with the Securities Class Action), an order directing the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution from the defendants, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 12, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Derivative Action.

Our common stock has been publicly traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “PTCT” since June 20, 2013. Prior to that time, there was no public market for our common stock.

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market:

High

Low

Year ended December 31, 2017

First quarter

$

16.50

$

8.12

Second quarter

$

18.86

$

9.41

Third quarter

$

22.00

$

14.56

Fourth quarter

$

21.58

$

14.87

Year ended December 31, 2016

First quarter

$

31.89

$

5.27

Second quarter

$

10.15

$

5.78

Third quarter

$

14.35

$

5.64

Fourth quarter

$

14.57

$

4.03

Holders

As of February 28, 2018, there were 166 holders of record of our common stock. This number does not include beneficial owners whose shares are held in street name.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock, and we do not expect to pay any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

Inducement stock option awards

Pursuant to the Nasdaq inducement grant exception, during the quarter ended December 31, 2017, we issued options to purchase an aggregate of 99,000 shares of common stock to certain new hire employees at a weighted-average exercise price of $16.13 per share. The shares underlying these option awards have been registered on a Form S-8 registration statement.

Purchase of Equity Securities

We did not purchase any of our registered equity securities during the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The following table sets forth certain financial data with respect to our business. The selected consolidated financial data is derived from, and should be read in conjunction with, our Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes and Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”, and other information contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.